MONDAY, May 1, 2017: NOTE TO FILE
Down with Democracy,
Up with Naturocracy
History may repeat with a different outcome
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." —George Brock Chisholm, former Director of the U.N. World Health Organization
"Every subject of worldwide importance—each question upon which the life and death of humanity depends—involves science, and people are not going to be able to exercise their democratic right to direct government policy...." —Isaac Asimov
"There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than by the creation of a world government." —Albert Einstein
"There can be little question that the attainment of a federation of all humanity... would mean such a release and increase of human energy as to open a new phase in human history.... Without supposing any change in human quality, but merely its release from the present system of inordinate waste." —H.G. Wells, The Outline of History
"There has been a serious erosion of the tradition of skeptical inquiry, of vigorous challenging of government leaders, of public exposure of what the government is actually doing, rather than mere pomp and rhetoric. And it is in this area—skeptical scrutiny, public exposure—where the largest strides, in my opinion, are needed." Carl Sagan 1987. And meanwhile, in the last 35 years: More pomp and rhetoric, and less critical thinking about information which has largely been replaced by misinformation/disinformation in a thriving (for a time) global kakistocracy that is not remotely sustainable within which Tweedledum and Tweedledee (aka Right and Left) agree to have a battle for Tweedledum said Tweedledee had spoiled his nice new rattle....
Eric Lee, A-SOCIATED PRESS
TOPICS: TECHNOCRACY, FROM THE WIRES, HUBBERT, ECOLATE PARTY
Abstract: Technocracy, a little known early twentieth-century alternative to business-as-usual (BAU), was conceptually transitional between democracy and naturocracy. Naturocracy involves humans listening to Nature and managing human demands on Nature's resources. As it nearly was with technocracy, a transition to naturocracy will be possible when an unpredictable by date 'teachable moment' arises, when the narrative of the current global empire falters, when humans realize they don't get a vote.
TUCSON (A-P) — Technocracy, 'the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers', began post WWI. The war had required breaking down established rules and customs to realize better ways of running industry (industrial society). An informal think tank, calling itself the Technical Alliance, started in 1919 to think about better managing the social system and the industrial production system/economy/society. The Roaring Twenties, however, led to widespread disinterest in alternative ways of doing things, since the SYSTEM seemed to be working. This changed in 1929 with the Great Depression.
M. King Hubbert was an instructor in geophysics at Columbia University in 1931 when by chance he met Howard Scott, founding member of the Technical Alliance, an informal think tank that had formed in 1919, and became interested in technocracy as alternative to business-as-usual democracy. At Hubbert's instigation, Scott and other members of the old-guard began meeting again and formed Technocracy Incorporated in 1933. For this he was later investigated by the Board of Economic Warfare during WWII, and reading the transcript is most illuminating.
Hubbert’s legal advisers helped him avoid telling too much truth to power. No politicians or those politically active were allowed to join his Technocracy movement to replace corporations, government, and nation-states, i.e. the BAU control system and 'monetary culture'. The Board members had no idea who was sitting in front of them and little grasp of what he was saying and not saying.
In a letter to his sister, Hubbert confessed: '“Perhaps you would be interested to know that you are receiving a letter from one of the most dangerous radicals in the United States. I am for an overhaul of this country from top to bottom so thorough that the plans of the Socialists and Communists look cheap by comparison.”
Things weren't getting better and better, there wasn't a chicken in every pot, and the public was willing to consider alternatives. A movement, little known today, the largest at the time, sprang up and at one point claimed a half million members in California alone (8% of total population, maybe 15% of adults compared to 1% Green Party, or 4% of vote for all third party candidates put together in 2016 US election). If economic recovery had not been possible for biophysical reasons, then technocracy may have been given a trial run had descent continued much longer. When 21st century descent cometh, no amount of business-as-usual machinations nor political/economic 'solutions' will help, but, per demagoguery-as-usual, will result in unforeseen consequences that will accelerate the race to the bottom, during which time, however, humans may consider alternatives that might actually work.
The Greeks tried democracy, others (e.g. The Founding Fathers) tried it again. It was 'the worst form of government with the exception of all the others'. Democracy had rhetorically tried to eliminate the separation of government from the governed. But in practice, due to practical and sociobiological limitations, democracy became a representative, hierarchical control SYSTEM . Pure democracy may work for communities of 20 to 80 (< Dunbar's number where people work out what works 'naturally' and so don't need democracy, police, locks on doors, etc.), and if each household/extended family sends a representative, a representative democracy in a community of maybe up to 1,500 might self-organize and work. In large complex societies, representatives end up serving special interests, their own and those of the highest bidder, but at best they serve short-term human self interests. Whose bread they eat, their song they sing. Factions form. Public opinion is easily manufactured.
We all actually live in a lunocracy, though some say we live in an idiocracy ('Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.' —Mark Twain), but we really don't live in an idiocracy as clever ape services are needed to make any complex SYSTEM work (if only for a time). An idiocracy is a kakistocracy pretending to be an aristocracy. Those who run the show, or think they do, are mostly legally elected/appointed maniacs/lunatics and their minions (above average all, from lowly lunocrates on up) who serve 'the worst form of government, except for all the others' (as viewed by a Churchill, Lenin, Mao, Kim Jong-un, Trump, or Putin) who are able to remain in power because they serve their fellow denizens of industrial society, humans of NIMH all, and their short-term self interests.
The hidden-in-plain-sight fact is that in the 19th and 20th centuries the various forms of government morphed into functionally the same form because complex systems self-organize and select for 'what works' and 'democracy' was what worked to grow the now global hegemon. When Khrushchev banged his shoe at the UN having some years earlier said 'We will bury you' he implied, among other things, that the communist's planned economy would outgrow the capitalist West's free market economy. However, pure capitalism (privatizing profit and costs) became socialist and pure communism (commonizing profit and costs) became socialist (which in practice involves privatizing profit and commonizing costs, e.g. pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss...).
The possibility of equitably commonizing benefits (within limits and as needed, as distinct from wanted) and costs (as incurred by labor on up to planetary life-support system) in a managed commons (i.e. the world system), to avoid tragedy, has not been tried on a global scale. 'Rules of the game' could define human responsibilities and limits in a managed commons via a needed SYSTEM of managed commonism (naturocracy). So far we humans have failed to manage complex societies, with the possible exception of the Tairona.
So the global SYSTEM (plutocracy, corporatocracy, kleptocracy, oligarchy, democracy, lunocracy...) has come to 'run the show' (ride the whirlwind) of Growth's Mandate and is formed of subsystems having functionally the same form/purpose. All servants of the SYSTEM strive to grow what is now the global economy (with a focus on serving their immediate sub-economy whose bread they eat, and the contingencies of self interests) which selects for its own failure, hence we servants (all who value money, work for money, and likely have some to spend) are...what's the word? Let's just say we're not thinking well.
No, sorry, that we aren't thinking well is unthinkable. We can't have fallen into error, ignorance, and illusion. 'We the Lunatics of the Third Rock, in Order to Grow a more Perfect Economy (stupid), do what we're Doing to Keep on Keeping On for the Short-term Self-interest doing so serves...' Selling the claim that our leaders are lunatics is an easy sell, as Voltaire, Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and George Carlin can get away with noting, but even they can't get away with (and be celebrated for) telling us the truth. We cannot tell the truth to power (ourselves). If we did, we would admit that we are the lunatics our leaders resemble, whether we voted for them or not, who, one and all, are educated by servants of the SYSTEM, formal and informal, to become the idiot savant specialists we are and do what we're doing (are paid to do for a time).
So there are many forms, but the Form that works (for a time) is what is selected for and so the system iterates towards the same form. Go into any bank (there are many, e.g. Wells Fargo, Chase...). Apart from the name or perhaps pictures of stagecoaches pulled by teams of horses, would you know what bank you were in? Most differences are minor but loudly proclaimed pretend differences. All want to work and have iterated towards the same form and function for all meaningful purposes. All forms of government in the 21st century are the same, or if 'different' they are in the same way as no two pencils are exactly the same. Some maniacal lunatics of NIMH are elected (some aren't) to pretend to rule us humans of NIMH who all ride, for a time, the whirlwind of growth for its own sake.
Technocracy would have been fundamentally different and was not selected for as there was (in 1930s) no biophysical reason that the wealth of nations, the economic subsystems of the growing corporatocracy, couldn't keep on keeping on growing the economic hegemon of techno-industrial society. Look around. Whatever form of government you are blessed to live under, or are often told you are blessed to live under, is more similar than different from all the others (i.e. democracy, republic, federation, kingdom..., e.g. USA, People's Republic of China, Russian Federation, Kingdom of Sweden, People's Democratic Republic of Korea, Vatican City State occupied by the Holy See who elect their leader to preside over their ideological empire).
Technocracy was conceived as being foundationally different, i.e. as being alternative to all forms of government that may have different historical/ideological origins and prefer different words, but that have morphed into what is functionally the same form, i.e. the form that empire-building growth hegemons select for, i.e. lunocracies that joined together in the 20th century to be subsumed into the self-organized Euro-Sino Empire of today we all live in (the small fraction of a percent who don't, can't read this). The Republic of India is a 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic' (of India), another lunocracy or democracy or whatever you think you are supposed to call whatever government you serve.
All SYSTEM serving wordsmiths are lunatics too (or pundits, journalists, talking heads, public intellectuals, podcasters, speech writers...). No matter what official language they speak/write, they sing whatever song they think other lunatics, We the People and/or our leaders, want to hear (e.g. George Monibot). None listen to Nature (or if they do they aren't listened to unless we Like and Share, in taverns or social/mainstream media, what they are telling us that Nature is saying as filtered through our politicized prattle). Some Anthropocene enthusiasts are openly BAU (business-as-usual) lovers, while others clamor for a GND (Green New Deal, BAU in sheep's clothing), Not listening to Nature, to the nature of things, defines lunacy in whatever form by whatever name. The endeavor to listen to Nature defines naturocracy in whatever form it may take.
Technocracy envisioned a planned corporatocracy in which government employees, as technocrats serving in a meritocracy, managed corporations, government bureaucracies, and other affairs as needed based on best-guess-science to serve public humancentric interests that included growing the economy and equitably increasing per capita consumption at least for a time. This would have been different, better or worse, from the present SYSTEM (lunocracy) in which the public, special interests, and public servants serve money-based interests, especially their own, to grow the economy and maximize growth and consumption without limit.
So down with democracy.
Up With Naturocracy
Technocracy was alternative to business-as-usual and may have been the best-guess solution to managing the socio-political-economic system in the early twentieth century. In the form conceived then, given the development of systems science since, technocracy may not be our best-guess alternative appropriate for managing descent in the twenty-first century.
The history of technocracy is relevant as history may repeat itself when the current global empire's narrative of continued growth and prosperity for all falters. The Great Depression was self-inflicted, a failure of the financial system, not of the biophysical economy, and so recovery was possible, indeed, inevitable. Then again, as in the Roaring Twenties, with success of the New Deal and post WWII recovery, interest in technocracy passed away as exponential growth kicked back in giving rise to the consumer society we are all products of.
In the early 1930's the resurrected informal think tank at Columbia was quietly thinking about issues and real solutions when word about 'radical ideas' got out, was picked up by the press, and spread 'like a forest fire' as the public was ready for some heretical thinking by those who may actually know enough to offer solutions, such as a proposal that money be replaced by energy certificates (based on how much energy it takes to produce specific goods to 'optimize the use of energy to assure abundance'). Foundational changes were considered, such as dispensing with nation-states and managing North America as a whole, as a 'technate'.
Within the early 20th century growth system there was still 'plenty' of skilled labor and resources (especially energy) for the taking, and the financial downturn was merely self-inflicted and temporary. Conflict is drama, drama is entertaining and entertainment (and hope) sells, so as Hubbert noted, 'seven or eight publishing houses rushed out with books on Technocracy'. The books were written by company hacks so it was relative know-nothings who 'informed' the public (as-usual). Still, it was enough to start a movement—a deluge of people wanting to join, work for and contribute money..., so to protect themselves legally the group incorporated under State of New York laws as Technocracy Incorporated which used the support and money for research and education. The group was entirely non-political and did not allow politicians or those active in politics to be members of the group—they did not believe in political solutions but sought alternative 'technical' ones. Science-based alternatives (policies, management, decision making) may actually be considered again someday.
The idea of a naturocracy, 'the rule by natural laws made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers', is similar to that of technocracy except the managers/intelligentsia/doers/decision makers primarily serve planetary life-support system interests rather than the humancentric self-serving interest of working to maximize growth to give as many humans as possible what humans want while the rich (e.g. Americans, Europeans, Australians, Japanese, elite industrialized urban residents) get richer and the bush-meat hunters get a little richer.
When biophysical limits force descent, humans would do well to consider alternatives to chaos and design a SYSTEM, new rules of the game, beforehand that might actually work to select for adaptive, functional behaviors compatible with long-term biosphere and humanity interests. When the dominant humancentric narrative can no longer be believed in, demagogues-as-usual will arise to offer humancentric 'solutions' with the usual outcome.
At the same time that the current narrative (of Growth's Mandate) falters—is no longer believed in by increasing numbers, foundational change, such as the technocrats considered, becomes possible to think about. This time around, humans (elites and commoners) will likely again consider alternatives, but growth will not 'save us' nor distract the public, so an 'alternative' to the Growth's Mandate narrative could be implemented if a real-solutions-plan, based on Nature's Mandate, is developed, tested insofar as possible, and is ready to implement when a teachable moment comes. Foreseeing such an eventuality and preparing for it now is a possibility to consider.
In the early twentieth century the challenge of maximizing human development and welfare (growth) looked like a technical problem. Science was focused on understanding all the bits and pieces which favored specialists looking through their respective conceptual microscopes. In the mid-twentieth century, systems science arose to develop a conceptual toolbox to illuminate all the bits and pieces, the facts as best as reductionists can determine them, and reveal, in the conceptual glow, the complex biophysical system that is life on Earth.
Eukaryotes were late comers. Some came to farm intracellular chloroplasts and others specialized in feeding upon others. Vertebrates came later and host more organisms in and on their bodies than there are mitochondria dependent cells in their bodies.
We vertebrates are clearly not the dominant life form, and our most conspicuous talent seems to be to come and go from the geological record. To the technocrats who only had a specialist's toolbox, all they had were technical hammers and so everything looked like technical nails. The difference this time is we have a fledgling systems science to obtain a better grasp of reality. Hubbert's thinking increasingly became that of systems inquiry. Had the Technate been forthcoming, their SYSTEM might not have been as badly managed as it has been and when systems thinking developed in the later half of that century, it might not have been marginalized. Science is undergoing foundational change, not by eliminating the old but by overlaying it with the glow of systems inquiry. To live on the planet properly, we need to base management of human demands on Nature's resources upon systems science. We could double down on ideology, whether political, religious, or both, but how's that been working for us?
Humans may not be able to work towards a goal, to devote their lives and family fortunes to a cause (a Plan B) such as a plan to rebuild society after a 'zombie apocalypse' scenario which is easier to just not believe in, hence denialism reigns. Given a need to offer a positive vision, alternative is to envision turning things around in such a way that should our best Plan A fail, it will also serve as Plan B to rebuild.
So even those who estimate the probability of 'turning things around' to be some fraction of one percent, need to offer hope in the form of a realistic plan to save the world and humanity. Hence those exercising their foresight intelligence know to offer a 'Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere' with humanity mentioned first, as if humans are special, exceptional, just a little lower than the angels. The biosphere would get along just fine, thank you, without Anthropocene enthusiasts (the 99%) or tree-huggers (typically Anthropocene enthusiasts in sheep's clothing), so we need to transition to a better view of reality where Nature matters (Earth comes first) and human affairs are subsystems of environment managed by a naturocracy in which Nature tells us what works right and well to persist. 'Nature has all the answers' and we don't get a vote. The laws of thermodynamics don't go away because we deny/ignore/mystify/marginalize/obfuscate or disbelieve in them.
Adapted from Mark Brown, Beyond Growth: Economics as if the Planet Mattered, 2/5/2019.
'Monetary culture' vs matter-energy system worldview. —Hubbert
'Li' is Chinese for the laws—organizing principles of the cosmos.
The Naturocracy and How it Will Arise
Naturocracy envisions a planetary technate (or ecolate) to manage interwatershed management unit affairs equitably by defining limits, using emdollar evaluation to provide for fair trade limited to sustainable exports, provide protection from conquest, and otherwise defining the 'rules of the game' that apply to all per Mother's laws to ensure 'the maintenance of a viable equilibrium between Man’s demands and Nature’s resources'. Other services of the global ecolate (aka Federation of Watersheds as applied systems science) are provided by Federation embassies in each watershed management unit and would involve information sharing, a baseline medical/dental clinic, library/school, and a workshop/repair facility in low-power watersheds (hunter-gatherer/dispersed low-intensity agriculture watersheds), and member protection from non-Federation empire builders so as to provide for long-term member prosperity as the millennia pass.
The Ecolate Party is formed. Candidates run as independents and if elected, refuse to serve (until a majority of ecolate candidates are elected). Candidates serve to educate the public about ecolate/sustainability issues which the public and their intelligentsia can consider and initially reject (as would most professors at Schools of Sustainability). Until a majority of the self-organized 'Ecolate Party' candidates are elected, the Ecolate Party Platform cannot be implemented, which is why none will serve if elected as a minority as there is no possibility of serving in a SYSTEM dominated by business-as-usual types. When the business-as-usual narrative can no longer be believed, there will come an election where only Ecolate Party candidates are electable, or at least a 67% majority in Congress, who can, in the USA, call a constitutional convention to rewrite the framework for governance. No reason to wait, so rewrite it now and be ready.
Also no reason to wait to design an alternative socio-religio-politico-eco-nomic SYSTEM that might work and to test it out on as large a scale as possible. Local Ecolate Party candidates, when elected as a 51+% majority within a watershed, can form a United Watershed County and manage it according to Federation proposed policies revised as the ongoing experiment in living proceeds. Multiple watersheds will allow for alternative management systems to be tested via guess-then-test methods. Early adopters and adapters can expect the best informed and functional humans on the planet to help design an ecolate SYSTEM offering real solutions to sustainability issues. The example set may encourage humans around the planet to consider and then do likewise as alternative to being subsumed by spreading chaos. Ecolate humans, initially a small fraction of a percent minority, may have to migrate (as intentional eMigrants) to selected watersheds to transform them.
As the Ecolate Party, to merit any claim to being different, is the anti-party party firmly opposed to political solutions, its political function on the nation state level, that of taking over the political control system to replace it, will be a one time only service. Those who served to educate and run for high (e.g. congressional) office, will at most serve once then retire from politics to find other ways to serve Nature's system of which humans will be a part. This is a doable vision, beginning with individuals thinking ecolate thoughts such as what does 'ecolate' mean and how would an ecolate life be lived? Transition to one transitioning household and live in it. From communities, population less than 150, as ecolate villages, multiple villages could spread within a watershed by migration and offering the inecolate (who value money) enough compensation to emigrate voluntarily. The first ecolate watershed could be a model for thousands more. If a Federation of Watersheds fails to develop, any ecolate watershed would be subject to conquest per business-as-usual.
Want to save the world? Who doesn't? Start now; educate yourself, keeping in mind that you'll have a fool for a teacher; be a party of one. Realize, based on the history of large-scale movements and politics-as-usual, that when the people demand answers/solutions, ideologues-as-usual will come forth to offer 'solutions' that a majority will believe in. They always have and will again unless real solutions are prepared prior to dissolution that the public and their intelligentsia have been taught to consider alternative by those most likely to know enough to have an opinion as to what might actually work (scientists and engineers). The credibility of the 'ecolate', when they can say 'we told you so', can flip from < 1% to > 90% of the public mind in a day (some major event happens) or a few years provided the foundations have been laid and reality-based memes spread: Some would-be ecolate humans will endeavor to develop real solutions; some will test; and others will run for political office to educate. Alternative is another round of ideologues and their demagogues with 'solutions' as-usual assuming we avoid species extinction.
In your spare time, learn Semantography to help pass on information packets just in case.
For some history that could repeat with a different outcome, watch a four minute video on Technocracy if only for the images.
Somewhat longer version: Technocracy, and for reading, a transcript. But to know the mind of technocrats, read the 1945 Technocracy Study Course by M. King Hubbert. The contents are actually the work of many over a 26 year period as coherently summarized by Hubbert. The best guess in 1945 as to what would actually work over the long-run, as distinct from politics as usual, is questionable. The centrality of technology is questionable. The centrality of Nature, and Nature's laws to which humans belong (e.g. of thermodynamics), is less so. Energy principles, unknown in 1945, are central, and no one gets a vote.
Nature doesn't seem to care what humans believe or clamor for. Nature, as in the nature of things, determines what works. Politicians, and those who vote for them, wouldn't know a real solution if it introduced itself and offered to shake hands, unless grinning broadly and holding a blank check, in which case it would probably be a pretender pretending to be a real solution. Politicians don't know enough to have an opinion other than a delusional one serving short-term interests—short-term contingencies of reinforcement. Those who endeavor to listen to Nature are different, as to listen one must think different. 'To think is to listen...there is no life without [ecolate] thought'.
I frequently have occasion to cite:
'If society does not succeed in changing attitudes and institutions for a harmonious descent, the alternative is to prepare information packages for the contingency of restart after crashing.' —H.T. Odum
Repetition may be a fault, but some points bear repeating.
Humans living through the post-growth transition and descent of all prior complex societies have always found doing so lamentable, and will again. Doing the 'prosperous way down' thing would violate no known laws of the universe, but embracing descent is not the pattern. Of course new adaptations happen, and naturocracy could be one as technocracy nearly was. I don't do the optimism/pessimism thing because with respect to any actual future, I don't know enough to have an opinion. Probable futures, e.g. Limits to Growth scenarios, involve likely guesses, but details are mere guesses. Whatever happens, someone will have 'been right', or claim prescience, but it will just be luck in terms of details. History tells us so.
A hundred years prior to 2019 a few people started considering making foundational changes to their SYSTEM and used the word 'technocracy' to reference the output of their informal best-guess think tank. The roaring of the late Twenties seemed to take the wind out of their sails and the group disbanded. In 1931 Hubbert, entirely by chance, met Howard Scott, a self-taught engineer and member of the original Technical Alliance group. The Depression had gotten people's attention, including Hubbert's, a sort of 2x4 upside industrial human's blindered heads, and he was foundationally questioning the SYSTEM. He soon became so interested in the ideas of the disbanded Technical Alliance, that, at his instigation, the think tank members reformed. They reconsidered options. There were 'radical' ideas about what might actually work, but no one had the slightest idea how to change the affairs of state/society that was then in power. Almost no one knew of their concerns, ideas, or that they existed. It all seemed totally hopeless.
Someone in the administration of Columbia University had heard about the group and, looking to promote Columbia in the press, mentioned that a group with some 'radical' ideas was associated (informally) with the university. The Press reported on the group and no one, the Press or group members, foresaw the response. The Public was ready for some 'radical' ideas and 'technocracy' spread, as Hubbert notes, 'like a wildfire'. Publishers, sensing book sales, turned their hack writers loose and books resulted, fanning the flames nationwide. The members had no idea what hit them, and following advice, formed Technocracy, Inc to receive all the money and other support the Public was throwing their way, to be used for research and education. Technocracy, little known today, was the largest movement at the time in Canada and US, at one point about 15% of Californian voters supported Technocracy 'solutions' that few had any understanding of. As Hubbert noted, the Depression was a financial misstep. Otherwise the economy was primed for growth. Had recovery been delayed a year or two, the Technocracy Movement could have taken over (for better or worse as usual). As soon as it looked like there was or soon would be a chicken in every pot, however, faith in growth was restored and Technocracy faded. As Hubbert later notes:
'Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know... I was in New York in the 30’s. I had a box seat at the depression. I can assure you it was a very educational experience. We shut the country down because of monetary reasons. We had manpower and abundant raw materials. Yet we shut the country down. We’re doing the same kind of thing now but with a different material outlook. We are not in the position we were in 1929–30 with regard to the future. Then the physical system was ready to roll. This time it’s not. We are in a crisis in the evolution of human society. It’s unique to both human and geologic history... Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered.'
Well, not actually 'all', just all that can be, but not to distract: The lesson of this history is that it could repeat, but with a different outcome. This time we are not primed for growth, and there will be a 'different material outlook'. If something like technocracy happens, it could have a different social outcome. Growth will not distract people as it did in the Roaring Twenties or post-Depression. If something like technocracy doesn't happen, popular demagogues will offer 'solutions' as usual with the usual outcome. This, per history, is not an extraordinary claim. Chance favors the prepared mind, so if we work now towards a 'better view' and are prepared to offer 'real solutions' when the public's 'teachable moment' arrives (as can be predicted, though when is anybody's guess), then there could be a radically different alternative to chaotic collapse as usual. Change can come unexpectedly and suddenly. Most Americans were determined to stay out of WWII. Then one day in December came and over ninety percent were chomping at the bit to enter the war.
I'm not thinking technocracy is a 'real solution' for the twenty-first century, though it may have been the best guess of what might actually have worked in the twentieth century. I'm guessing the technocrats would have been more inclined to listen to H.T. Odum, Bartlett, the Meadows.... The only people excluded from joining Technocracy, Inc. were politicians and those currently active in politics. Hubbert and friends did not believe in political 'solutions'. I don't either. Alternative to listening to 'primate prattle' is to listen to Nature, who 'has all the answers'. This is a proposed foundational change in the SYSTEM. Some ideas of the technocrats are of interest and all should be considered, but there will be significant differences as we need to incorporate new knowledge and understanding (systems science), including H.T.'s 'better view' that others have added to it by looking over, if not standing on, the shoulders of predecessors, who also endeavored to listen to Nature.
I propose calling the alternative to business-as-usual 'naturocracy' as the laws of Nature must rule those who would rather live long and prosper—those who would come to 'find glory in being an agent of the Earth' [H.T. Odum].
A more ecolate idea, based on systems science largely unknown in the 1930s, of subdividing the planetary ecolate into seven regional ecolates and 30 sublates, each subdivided into bioregions and numerous watershed management units (homlates), may become thinkable. An overarching control SYSTEM would manage the watersheds on a global level (United Federation of Watersheds) per the laws of Nature to set limits on Man's demands on Nature's resources. To consider a naturocracy is to consider foundational changes which, early into descent, may become thinkable. History can repeat, which can be a good thing. Different outcomes are allowed, but chance favors the prepared mind.
Peace activism involves living in harmony with biophysical systems to avoid scarcity induced conflict which wastes potential energy, leading to increased scarcity....
'I have played many roles sometimes with the majority, but more often attempting to shock the scientific establishment into a better view.' — Howard T. Odum
'Nature has all the answers, so what is your question?' – H.T. Odum
Naturocracy Alliance email group, messages readable by other members only, a subgroup of Existential Concerns
https://existential-concerns/g/naturocracy
For a current list of uses of 'naturocracy' used 122 times in 56 articles on this page: Naturocracy Usage.
After Newton, the intelligentsia finally came over to the Copernican 'better view' which was a revolution only secondary to collective resistance. Our best hope is that Odum is Copernicus enough, otherwise we await a Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, who may now be among us, to awaken the intelligentsia.
Those who talk 'emergy' and 'transformity' may self-identify as Odumites, followers of H.T. Odum who are at risk of being viewed as 'idiosyncratic'. H.T. spent much of his career 'attempting to shock the scientific establishment into a better view' as others still do who may or may not be 'followers'. Copernicus' 'better view' is accepted today, but it took over a hundred years (over two hundred for the church) for the intelligentsia to 'get right with reality'. That Odum has not been accepted among ecologists, much less the scientific establishment, is clear. That it is because he is wrong/confused/idiosyncratic, is not. Criticism is hard to come by, but see: http://www.eoht.info/page/Howard+T.+Odum. Other sources of disconfirming claims should be shared for the benefit of those who would rather know than believe.
The Ten Commandments below were left out of the second edition of Environment, Power, and Society perhaps because judged too 'idiosyncratic' by ecologists reading the first edition, but not necessarily because the points made were 'wrong'. Scientists, primates who sometimes wear lab coats, also have 'likes and dislikes', can be 'for and against' even though irrelevant in that the universe doesn't care what we like or dislike. Scientists are as capable as any of believing what they want and far better than others at using science to support their conclusions. It is only the evidence thing (aka Nature) that is corrective. If H.T. 'got it all wrong', then I'd expect humanity will get through the 21st century just fine, thank you, notwithstanding the concerns of some. If you are not an 'Odumite' then you can believe that alternative energy is alternative to fossil fuels. We'll see how our sense of exceptionalism works for us. Those who can actually think more than a decade ahead, who don't see things working out for the current empire, may do best to prepare for a teachable moment (or not if the 99+% are right).
We may grant Gaia personhood, but Gaia does not recognize our personhood, exceptionalism, human centrism, democracy, or human rights as asserted. None of these feel-good to clothed-ape concepts are 'out there'. We swim, for a time, in our glass darkly, in error, ignorance, and illusion. To get right with Gaia and thereby persist, we need to stand down from our hubris heights to embrace humilitas, and see our rights (claims of personhood and supremacy) as part of our pathological ways having a foreseeable outcome. What are not adaptive and evolvable (things) fall apart. If humans are 'different in kind' from other animals/organisms, then modern techno-industrial society (the monetary culture) and empire building follow. If not different in kind, then the worldview (e.g. Laozi, Hubbert) that follows will (as will our sort of lives) be foundationally different, i.e. alternative to metastatic pathology.
6/23/2021 Subnote to File: There is much hair-splitting in our thinking about the one true form of political system (and all the others). The major fork is between rule by one person (autocracy) or one party (oligarchy) and two parties (democracy). The Russian Empire was an autocracy and the Russian Federation is an oligarchy (aka a 'soviet democracy' and Kim Jong-un is Supreme Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Is there a functional difference? Or could we simplify and speak of an autocracy/oligarchy as an autoligocracy?
The USA is a representative democracy. But what if there was an insurrection, a 'permanent' change of guard, and one person becomes president for life? The system keeps on keeping on. Who would notice the change in the form of governance other than in words used or in perhaps a change in flag?
Without their party, a Supreme Leader could rule only their bedroom, maybe (if not married). When they die, they may select their successor who must serve the system too. Or they rule in absentia from heaven. The one true party would party on. Political discourse would change, but would there actually be other than a change of guard? Every two to four years new servants of We the People would be elected/reelected. Tweedledums and Tweedledees would agree to have a battle to see who could help grow the economy fastest. If you could choose to live in an autoligocracy or a democracy, how would you be able to pick? To be of service:
| Autoligocracy | Democracy |
|---|---|
| Commits incursions and wars. | Commits humanitarian interventions and wars. |
| Tortures opponents. | Uses enhanced interrogation techniques. |
| Uses terrorist groups to create instability. | Attacks terrorist groups to create stability. |
| Elites oppress and serve commoners. | Factions take turns doing this. |
| One party maintains the status quo. | Two parties compete to maintain the status quo. |
| Elites directly control the media. | Wordsmiths freely sing the song of those whose bread they eat. |
| Protesters who fail to serve the system are crushed. | Counter protesters crush those who fail to serve the system. |
| Those who rule overtly are well known. | Rulers stand behind (and 'donate' money to) the public figures who sing their song. |
| Voters know elections, if any, are rigged. | Voters whose party loses claim the election was rigged (e.g. of Sanders, Trump). |
| Journalists who fail to serve may be killed/imprisoned. | Journalists who fail to tell readers what they like are not published. |
| Political dissidents are silenced or marginalized. | The apolitical are ignored and dissidents are managed/imprisoned. |
| Believe that if war comes, they will win. | If provoked or able to go to war, assume 'we will win'. |
| Political speech is limited to one narrative. | Political speech is a wonderland of competing incoherent belief-based narratives. |
| Elites have more than enough and commoners have enough. | Commoners are paid more than enough as consumption enriches elites more. |
| Religion supports the regime. | Religion promises heaven to believers in the regime. |
| If there is scarcity, conflict is managed. | If there is scarcity, conflict is unmanageable, therefore we must grow..... |
| The government's media tells their story. | Media serves self/reader interests by serving governance. |
| Armed government thugs enforce the rule of law. | Armed public servants enforce the rule of law. |
| Students are taught to serve the state. | Students are taught to serve their short-term self interests (by serving the state). |
| Prefers to overtly command and control weaker nation-states. | Covertly commands and controls weaker nation-states. |
| Citizens lack the idea of or ability to rise up. | Citizens encouraged to rise up and loudly protest (peaceably). |
| What the people who serve want is provided in moderation. | All the people immoderately view themselves as elites or potential elites. |
| Everyone serves the short-term self interests of those who are served. | Everyone serves their short-term self interests which involves serving the economy. |
| Commoners are forced to serve the system. | Elites and commoners enthusiastically serve to grow the Anthropocene economy. |
| Elites and commoners know they are not free. | Elites and commoners believe they are free. |
| Political system selects for its own failure. | Political system selects for bigger and better ruins. |
Or in more facile words: The Difference Between Totalitarian Regimes And Free Democracies by Caitlin Johnstone, author of The Complete Book Of Astrology: Your personal guide to learning, understanding and using Astrology 2008
To simplify a bit more: If there is ever a 'new world order' (a phrase H.G. Wells used three times in The Shape of Things to Come 1933), it will not be a democracy or autoligocracy. Why? Because it wouldn't be new, but so BAU. A new form of global governance would need to be foundationally different to not select for its failure and/or that of the system it pretends to manage. A new world order would have to manage humanity's demands on Nature's (Gaia's) resources (i.e. set remorseless limits).
All forms of pretend governance of complex societies are relentlessly human centric. Alternative would be one that is relentlessly nature centric (e.g. as among our pre-empire-building ancestors who learned the hard way). But no Anthropocene enthusiast could possibly take an interest in serving a naturocracy nor considering the idea of doing so.
Whose MTI (modern techno-industrial) bread we eat..., so we will learn the hard way (understand) or die. As Lynn Margulis notes in [insert Lynn's preferred pronoun] forward to Reg Morrison's The Spirit in the Gene 1999, 'the thought collective' of scientists who share a 'thought style' (per words of Margullis' mentor, Ludwik Fleck) or joint system of viewing the world, has boundaries beyond which responsible thought leaders who serve the system (e.g. Robert Costanza) may not think.
Our thought collectives, the boundaries of our consensus narratives, of our domains of discourse, may be the death of us.
6/3/2023 Subnote to File:
Naturocracy
(the short of it)
Naturocracy involves humans listening to Nature and managing human demands on Nature's (not Man's) resources. The possibility of equitably commonizing benefits and costs in a managed commons to avoid tragedy has not been tried on a global scale. 'Rules of the game' could define human responsibilities and limits in a managed commons via a needed socioeco-nomic-political system of managed commonism (naturocracy).
Not listening to Nature, to the nature of things, defines lunacy in whatever form by whatever name. The endeavor to listen to Nature defines naturocracy in whatever form it may take. The idea of a naturocracy, 'the rule by natural laws made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers', is similar to that of technocracy except the managers/intelligentsia/doers/decision makers primarily serve planetary life-support system interests rather than the humancentric self-serving interest of working to maximize growth to give as many humans as possible what humans want while the rich (e.g. Americans, Europeans, Australians, Japanese, all industrialized urban residents) get richer and the bush-meat hunters get a little richer.
We need to transition to a better view of reality where Nature matters (Earth comes first) and human affairs are subsystems of environment managed by a naturocracy in which Nature tells us what works right and well to persist. 'Nature has all the answers' and we don't get a vote. The laws of thermodynamics don't go away because we deny/ignore/mystify/marginalize/obfuscate or disbelieve in them.
Naturocracy envisions a planetary technate (or ecolate) to manage interwatershed management unit affairs equitably by defining limits, using emdollar evaluation to provide for fair trade limited to sustainable exports, provide protection from conquest, and otherwise defining the 'rules of the game' that apply to all per Mother's laws to ensure 'the maintenance of a viable equilibrium between Man’s demands and Nature’s resources'. Other services of the global ecolate (aka Federation of Watersheds as applied systems science) are provided by Federation embassies in each watershed management unit and would involve information sharing, a baseline medical/dental clinic, library/school, and a workshop/repair facility in low-power watersheds (hunter-gatherer/dispersed low-intensity agriculture watersheds), and member protection from non-Federation empire builders so as to provide for long-term member prosperity as the millennia pass.
To consider a naturocracy is to consider foundational changes which, early into descent, may become thinkable. No Anthropocene enthusiast, whether pro-autocracy or pro-democracy, could possibly take an interest in serving a naturocracy nor even of considering the idea of doing so (much less of serving Nature or even posterity). Humans as political animals in overcomplex societies accept being governed by humans (especially those doing the governing). Being governed by the nature of things (Mother), is unthinkable to expansionistic human exceptionalists, especially those missing two-thirds of a chromosome.
Changes include replacing current conventional economics (neoclassical) and management (governments, managers, policy makers, stakeholders) with biophysical economics and systemic management, both being science based and not opinion and (humancentric) value based. Humans would remain as a stakeholder. Millions of other species would join them. Human needs and wants may be considered, but per the nature of things (what works long term to persist), no species gets a vote out of proportion to the fact they exist and no votes count. Human can keep on voting as a form of opinion poll, but the outcome will not determine policy/action. Nature, Gaia, Mother, the system determines what works and doesn't work. Systemic management will only endeavor to manage human demands on Nature's resourses. Humans will endeavor to manage (govern) themselves so as to persist long term (or fail and go extinct). Humans cannot vote to persist because they want to. Nature is unkind.
Another name for naturocracy is matriocracy, rule by Mother whom human females tend, by nature, to be more attuned to than expansionist males as selected for for 50k years. The word 'matriarchy' is far too tainted by 'patriarchy', as implied is rule by women as wannabe men.
The alternative to patriarchy, to patriarchal socioeconomic-political systems, is vastly more alternative than 'matriarchy' implies, so my preferred alternative word is 'matrifocal' as in K-cultures vs r-cultures, a matrifocal, naturcentric form of civilization. A viable society would listen to Nature (Mother) who has all the answers, and listen to the mothers who are, by nature, less posterity blind, less enthusiastic pursuers of short-term self interests possessed of foresight intelligence.
Men would seek to renormalize by listening to the mothers as well as Mother. Mothers would endeavor to listen to Mother. Modern techno-industrialized women (especially feminists, politicians, moguls, ideologues) need to renormalize too, but men more so. Focusing on serving their women (e.g. mothers and wives) is to strive for as alternative to self-aggrandizing short-term self interests.
Modern women are very much part of the Anthropocene, but the claim is that by nature (memetic/genetic) they are less enthusiastic on average and better able to question such enthusiasm as they have acquired from the expansionist form of civilization they are products of and are entreated to serve. 'The mothers' may be humanity's only hope to renormalize as K-strategists who form a K-culture as alternative to non-viable r-culture.
It is clear, therefore, that our present position on the nearly vertical front slopes of these [growth] curves is a precarious one, and that the events which we are witnessing and experiencing, far from being “normal,” are among the most abnormal and anomalous in the history of the World. Yet we cannot turn back; neither can we consolidate our gains and remain where we are. In fact, we have no choice but to proceed into a future, which we may be assured will differ markedly from anything we have experienced thus far.
— M. King Hubbert,
Science, 1949, pp. 103-109
The long-term future of the earth must be faced soon as a guide for present action. Goals of nations and societies must be altered to become compatible with that future, otherwise man remains out of balance with his environment. Man can do vast damage first, but eventually he will yield to the mounting forces of the environment. Can the traditions of civilization be altered to become compatible with global equilibrium?
— Jay W. Forrester,
World Dynamics , 1973, pp. 123-125
Those who will be living at the end of this century will see much of this land of the future come into view, but even there and then as now, earth resources will continue to be the base for human existence and will inevitably exert final control over the destinies of nations and individuals. We are made of Earth materials, and its biological products, and on these we survive. To continue to negatively impact our environment is a form of suicide. “Mother Earth” is not an abstract concept but very much a reality, for from Earth we came, on it we depend for our existence.…
— Walter Youngquist, GeoDestinies, 2009
The fifth revolution will come when we have spent the stores of coal and oil that have been accumulating in the earth during hundreds of millions of years…it is obvious that there will be a very great difference in ways of life…a man has to alter his way of life considerably, when, after living for years on his capital, he suddenly finds he has to earn any money he wants to spend…. This change may justly be called a revolution, but it differs from all the preceding ones in that there is no likelihood of its leading to increases of population, but even perhaps to the reverse.
— Charles Galton Darwin, 1953, The Next Million Years, p. 52
R1: Use of fire as exosomatic energy source.
R2: Use of agriculture as energy source to feed growing populations
R3: Urbanization to concentrate human labor and wage empire building
R4: Information explosion enabiling fossil fueled technology to industrialize the planet
R5: Post carbon future yet to be, of extinction and endeavors to renormalize
R6: Humans renormalize as K-strategists by understanding the planet enough to persist (or not)
Projections...: (1) We will refuse to solve our own problems so Mother Nature will “solve” them for us. (2) Sooner or later industrial decline will cause population decline and, tit-for-tat feedback, population decline will cause industrial decline. (3) The U.S. population distribution in 2100 will look more like the rural geography of 1900 than like the urban geography of today. (4) Trying to stimulate—or even maintain—the present level of domestic demand of nonrenewable and renewable Earth resources will fail. (5) Multiculturalism will cause chaos during the transition to localism.
—Richard Duncan, The Olduvai Theory - Toward Re-Equalizing the World Standard of Living 2009
If the truth makes you uncomfortable, don't blame the truth. Blame the lie that made you comfortable.
—James Ng Uni
