Here is the link to the original article: http://www.soc.nu/utopian/competitors/prop_final.asp?ID=140

AUTHOR
Name: Ted Trainer
City: Sydney
Country: Australia
Date of birth: 05 Mar 1941
Sex: Male

Ted Trainers personal web site     http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/


The Way It Could Be.
SUMMARY

5th Feb., 2004.

I am finalizing an account that will be offered in two forms.

The first is a c 30 page summary. Its first section explains that a sustainable and just society cannot be achieved without radical and extreme change. Present rich world levels of production and consumption are far beyond those that could be kept up for long or extended to all the world's people. The second section makes clear the implications for the required alternative, The Simpler Way. These include much less affluent lifestyles, high levels of self-sufficiency, more cooperative and participatory ways, an almost totally new economic system not driven by market forces and without any growth, and some very different values. The third section discusses how we might best contribute to such a transition by beginning to build the new systems here and now..

The second account is in the form of a novel taking the reader on a visit to a town which has adopted the principles outlined in section 2. This might be more effective for conveying the experience of living according to The Simpler Way. It offers profound rewards and satisfactions, and a much higher quality of life than consumer-capitalist society gives to people in the rich countries.



FULL ENTRY





THE WAY IT COULD BE:

AN OUTLINE OF THE GLOBAL SITUATION, THE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE SOCIETY, AND THE TRANSITION TO IT.

Part 1 (of 2)

Ted Trainer
Faculty of Arts, University of N.S.W.

For detailed documentation on the issues discussed here see
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/

For an account of The Simpler Way in the form of a 220 page "novel" describing the fictional visit of a journalist to a town which has followed The Simpler Way, see
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D80-THEWAY-Prt1-Day1-Morn.html


The form a sustainable and just society must take cannot be discussed sensibly unless we first clarify the essential reasons why the present society is unacceptable. The argument in the first Section below is that this society is grossly unsustainable and unjust and that a satisfactory society cannot be achieved without extremely radical change on several fronts.

The first of the two core mistakes in this society is the reliance on market forces, which guarantees worsening inequality and injustice. The second and even more important problem is the obsession with ever increasing affluence. This directly fuels the major global problems of resource depletion, ecological destruction, Third World deprivation, conflict and a falling quality of life.

Section 2 draws the inescapable implications for the basic a satisfactory society must take. It must be based on non-affluent lifestyles, high levels of self-sufficiency within localised economies, cooperation and participation, an almost completely new economic system, and therefore some very different values.

Section 3 briefly discusses how me might best work for such a transition.

Section 1: THE TWO BASIC MISTAKES.

There are two major faults built into the foundations of consumer-capitalist society causing the main global problems threatening our survival. The first is allowing competition within the market to be the major determinant of what is done in our society.

Fault 1: THE MARKET; GLOBAL INJUSTICE.

Markets do some things well and in a satisfactory and sustainable society there could be a considerable role for them, but only if carefully controlled. It is easily shown that the market system is responsible for most of the deprivation and suffering in the world. The basic mechanisms are most clearly seen when we consider what is happening in the Third World. (For detailed documentation see Note 1.)

The enormous amount of poverty and suffering in the Third World is not due to lack of resources. There is for instance sufficient food and land to provide for all. The problem is that these resources are not distributed at all well. Why not? The answer is that this is the way the market economy inevitably works.  (Actually-everywhere!)

The global economy is a market system and in a market scarce things always go mostly to the rich, e.g. to those who can bid most for them. That's why we in rich countries get most of the oil produced. It is also why more than 500 million tons of grain are fed to animals in rich countries every year, over one-third of total world grain production, while 1.2 billion people are malnourished.

Even more important is the fact that the market system inevitably brings about inappropriate development in the Third World, i.e., development of the wrong industries. It will lead to the development of the most profitable industries, as distinct from those that are most necessary or appropriate. As a result there has been much development of plantations and factories in the Third World that will produce things for local rich people or for export to rich countries. Many of their cities have freeways and international airports, but there is little or no development of the industries that are most needed by the poorest 80% of their people. The third World’s productive capacity, its land and labor, are drawn into producing for the benefit of others. This is most disturbing regarding export crops. In many poor and hungry countries most of the best land is growing crops to export to rich world supermarkets.

These are inevitable consequences of an economic system in which what it done is whatever is most profitable to the few who own capital, as distinct from what is most needed by people or their ecosystems. (See Note 2 for detailed discussion.) The Third World problem will never be solved as long as we allow these economic principles to determine development and to deliver most of the world's wealth to the rich.

Conventional economics basically defines development as economic growth. Thus what is developed is little more than whatever promises to maximize the profits of those who have capital to invest, i.e., transnational corporations and banks. (individual investors as well, for instance retired "green" teachers, etc.) These never invest in the production of the things most needed in the Third World, such as cheap basic food, clean water and housing. What their investment does is devote Third World land and labour to supplying rich world supermarkets and Third World elites. The large amount of productive capacity a poor country has is therefore applied to enriching others, or left idle.

Obviously it would be far better for people in Bangladesh who are paid 15c an hour to make shirts if they could put that time and energy into local farms and firms to produce basic necessities for themselves.

For these reasons, conventional Third World development can be seen as a form of legitimised plunder. ( Goldsmith, 1997, Chussudowsky, 1997, Rist, 1997, Swhwarz and Schwarz, 1998.) Our rich world affluence and comfort are built on massive global injustice.

We must recognize that the global economy functions as an empire which the rich countries run mostly for their own benefit, resorting to the use of power and repression to keep Third World countries to the sorts of policies the rich want. This is evident in the Structural Adjustment Policies and rules of the World Trade Organization which enable rich world corporations to dominate Third World economies.

In addition the rich countries have a long record of support for many dictatorial and brutal regimes. They have enabled and actually engaged in terrorism, they have invaded and attacked and killed thousands of innocent people, in order to ensure that regimes and regions keep to the sorts of policies that suit the rich countries. This intervention used to be described as countering "communist subversion" but is now more likely to be described as "humanitarian intervention" and as countering terrorism. (For extensive documentation on the existence and maintenance of the empire see Note 3.)

Rich world "living standards" could not be as high as they are if the global economy did not function in the ways outlined above. (this also includes the "professional class" in the United States) There is no possibility of satisfactory Third World development until the rich countries stop hogging far more than their fair share of the world’s resources, until development and distribution begin to be determined by need and not by market forces and profit, and therefore until we develop a very different global economic system. (exactly the same thing that needs to happen within the United States-for all people)

Market relations destroy social relations

In the richest countries we are seeing increasing social breakdown, stress and depression, drug abuse, suicide, litigation, decay of communities and rural decline. Attitudes to the poor, homeless and unemployed are hardening. Each of us must focus on competing to succeed as a self-interested aggressive entrepreneur, and we must not expect much assistance from the state, for instance in old age. Public institutions like museums and even universities are expected to operate like corporations that must sell to customers and make a profit. These phenomena involve a disturbing loss of social cohesion. (this is probably the most disturbing and most profound paragraph in this entire article)

These are consequences of the neo-liberal agenda with its increasing insistence on market forces. The more attention individuals give to pursuing economic goals within the market the more that the values and concerns that are crucial for a good society will be driven out. (See Note 4.) There cannot be a satisfactory society unless people put considerable value on things like the public good, the welfare of all, social justice and the experience of less fortunate people. However in a market situation you have to be concerned only with your own advantage; i.e., with self interest. There is no incentive to think and behave cooperatively or to focus on what is good for society. The more we commercialize things, the more space buying and selling take up in our lives, the more we have to deal in a market place to get what we want, then the less attention we will give to social values, such as concern for the welfare of others or for the public good. (another profound paragraph)

It has become a divided, winner-take-all society, with many now classified as "excluded". The rich, including the upper-middle class which does the top managerial and legal work for the corporations, and the professionals, are rapidly increasing their wealth and have no interest in calling for change. Inequality and polarization are accelerating. The state has ceased to be concerned with redistribution of wealth. The greed evident in bank fees, corporate executive salaries, legal and professional fees, cheap sell-offs of public assets, etc does not evoke significant resistance. (another profound paragraph)

All this is sociologically appalling. Great damage is being done to social cohesion, public spirit, trust, concern for the underdog, good will and concern for the public interest. You cannot have a satisfactory society made up of competitive, self-interested individuals all trying to get as rich as possible! In a satisfactory society there must be considerable concern for the public good and the welfare of all, and there must be considerable collective social control and regulation and service provision, to make sure all are looked after, to maintain public institutions and standards, and to reinforce the sense of social solidarity whereby all are willing to contribute to the good of all. (another profound paragraph)

The economic historian Polanyi stressed how misguided it is for a society to allow the market to be as dominant as it is in our society. (Dalton, 1968) No society previous to ours has done this. Polanyi insisted that unless market forces are under tight social control they will destroy society and its ecosystems. Everything will be open to sale for maximum profit. (another profound paragraph)

Globalisation

We have entered a period in which all these problems are rapidly deteriorating, because of the globalization of the economy. The big corporations and banks are now pushing through a massive restructuring of the global economy, the development of a unified and de-regulated system in which they are sweeping away the controls previously hindering their access to increased business opportunities, markets, resources and cheap labor. The supreme, sacred principle now is to "free market forces". Consequently the pressure is on governments to remove the protection, tariffs and controls which they once used to manage, regulate, stimulate and protect their economies and to guide development. Government enterprises are being sold to private corporations. Government services are being cut. Corporations are paying little tax. These changes are enabling the transnational corporations to come in and take more of the businesses, resources and markets local people once had, and to gear "development" to whatever suits them rather than to what is needed by most people.

The now heavily documented consequences are devastating the lives of millions of people, especially in the Third World. Globalization is eliminating the arrangements which used to ensure that many little people could sell and work and trade, and that local resources such as land would produce things they need. Now the corporations are able to take over those opportunities to increase their sales. Globalization is basically a gigantic takeover of economic wealth by the big corporations and banks. (but it happens individually everywhere as well) (For much evidence on the damaging effects of globalization see Note 5.)

Globalization constitutes a crushing triumph for the corporate rich. (the Western professional class and government workers are heavily invested in corporations) Inequality is rapidly worsening (Note 6.)-- a few are becoming much richer, the poor are becoming more numerous and even the middle classes of the rich countries are being hollowed out. The rich countries are racing away from the poor and for many countries the GDP per capita is actually falling.

Why do governments willingly go along with these "neo-liberal" free market policies? It is important to recognize that the fault is in the system -- it is not essentially due to dull-witted or evil leaders. Even if a government did not believe the neo-liberal world view, it would have no choice but to go along with it if its country is to survive in the competitive global economy. Governments must seek to cut production costs, free corporations to do more business, make national exports cheaper and more competitive, and attract more foreign investment. If a government doesn't do these things its economy will not survive. It will not attract foreign investment, its credit rating will be dropped so the cost of borrowing capital will rise, and its exports will not be able to compete in the global market.

Some aspects of globalization, such as the internet, are desirable, but a just global economy cannot be driven by market forces. Even more important, the limits to growth analysis (below) shows that a sustainable world order cannot have a globalised economy. There will not be sufficient energy and resources or all that transport and trade. A sustainable world order must be mostly made up of small and localized economies, with relatively little long distance trade.


Conclusions on the Market System,

It is a very serious mistake to assume that if we leave things to market forces, i.e., to competition between individuals, corporations and nations trying to maximize their self-interest, then we will end up with a satisfactory society. A free market will inevitably result in the strongest and richest winning, taking even more and becoming even richer while the poor majority become more deprived. The environment and social cohesion cannot be protected if the basic rules of society free individuals to grab as much as possible for themselves

In other words it is not possible to have a good society unless we make sure that considerations of morality, justice, ecological sustainability and the good of society are the primary determinants of what happens. There must be considerable social control and regulation of the economy. (This does not mean control by states or centralized bureaucracies and there could still be a place for private firms and markets; see below.)


Fault 2: THE LIMITS TO GROWTH

There is an even more important and alarming mistake built into the foundations of consumer-capitalist society. This is the commitment to an affluent lifestyle and to an economy that must have constant and limitless growth in output. Our rich world levels of production and consumption are far too high to be kept up for very long and could never be extended to all people. We are rapidly depleting resources and damaging the environment.

However, despite the fact that our present way of life is grossly unsustainable we are obsessed with economic growth, i.e., with increasing production and consumption, as much as possible and without limit! (For the detailed limits case see Note 7, or Trainer, 1995a, 1998, 1999.)

Following are some of the main points supporting this "limits to growth" conclusion.

1. Rich countries, with about one-fifth of the world’s people, are consuming about three-quarters of the world’s resource production. Our per capita consumption is about 15-20 times that of the poorest half of the world’s people. World population will probably stabilize around 9 billion, somewhere after 2050. If all those people were to have Australian per capita resource consumption, then world production of all resources would have to be 6 to 8 times as great as it is now. If we tried to raise present world production to that level by 2050 we would by then have completely exhausted all probably recoverable resources of one third of the basic mineral items we use. All probably recoverable resources of coal, oil, gas, tar sand and shale oil, and uranium (via burner reactors) would have been exhausted by 2045.

2. Petroleum appears to be especially limited. A number of geologists have concluded that world oil supply will probably peak by around 2010 and could be down to half that level by 2030, with big price increases soon after the peak. (See especially Campbell, 1997.) It would be difficult to exaggerate the seriousness of such an event.

3. If all 9 billion people were to use timber at the rich world per capita rate we would need 3.5 times the world's present forest area. If all 9 billion were to have a rich world diet, which takes about .5 ha of land to produce, we would need 4.5 billion ha of food producing land. But there is only 1.4 billion ha of cropland in use today and this is not likely to increase.

4. Recent "Footprint" analysis (Wachernagel and Rees, 1995.) estimates that it probably takes 8 ha of productive land to provide water, energy settlement area and food for one person living in Australia. So if 9 billion people were to live as we do we would need about 76 billion ha of productive land. But that is about 10 times all the available productive land on the planet.

5. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that in order to stop the carbon content of the atmosphere from rising beyond double the pre-industrial level of 270 ppm we must keep annual carbon dioxide emissions below about 9 billion tons. This represents a 60-80% reduction. If we have 9 billion people on earth soon the per capita limit will be I tonne. However the present Australian per capita emission from fuel burning is 16 tonnes, and if land clearing is included it is 27 tonnes!

These are some of the main limits to growth arguments which lead to the conclusion that we are far beyond sustainable levels of production and consumption and that there is no possibility of all people rising to the living standards we take for granted today in rich countries. We in rich countries can only live as we do because we are taking and using up most of the scarce resources, and preventing most of the world's people from having anything like a fair share. Therefore we can't morally endorse our way of life. We must accept the need to move to far simpler and less resource-expensive ways.

Population

It follows from the foregoing discussion that world is over-populated. However the most serious problem we have is not over-population– it is over-consumption.

What about renewable energy?

We must eventually move from fossil fuels to the use of renewable energy, but it is not likely that we can all live in energy-affluent ways on renewable energy sources. (For the detail see Note 8.) There are large energy losses in converting sunlight into electricity and then into a storable form, such as hydrogen, in transporting the energy to cold northern American or European countries, and then converting it back to electricity. At present efficiencies less than 5% of the solar energy collected in Sahara desert solar plants would be delivered as electricity in northern Europe in winter. The cost of a solar plant would probably be more than 50 times as much as a coal fired plant in Europe that would deliver the same amount of electricity (and twice that when interest charges on the money borrowed to build the plant are taken into account).

There are similar problems with wind energy, especially the fact that there is always a probability that at some point in time many mills will be idle. This probably limits this source even in high wind areas to providing only about one-quarter of the electricity needed. (Grubb and Meyer, 1993.) Many regions do not have good wind resources. Recent CSIRO wind mapping indicates that at even at twice the normal electricity price NSW might get less than 5% of its demand from wind.

The biggest problem concerns liquid fuel. It would seem that there is far too little available land for biomass production to meet present liquid fuel and gas demand.

Note that these comments refer only to the present level of energy demand, but demand is increasing significantly. Energy use in Australia is likely to more than quadruple by 2050.

Certainly we should be developing renewable energy sources as fast as we can, but more important is developing ways of living well on per capita levels of energy use that are a small fraction of those we have now.

Hence many alarming global problems.

The most serious problems facing us are directly due to this "limits to growth" predicament. For instance the reason why we have an environment problem is simply because there is far too much producing and consuming going on. (For the detailed argument see Note 9.) (an argument for communal living?)

Most discussion of "Ecologically Sustainable Development" and most Green activism fail to grasp the limits analysis and therefore focus only on causes that are noble, for example, saving the whale, but that can make no significant difference to the fate of the planet. The environment cannot be saved unless there is dramatic reduction in the volume of production and consuming going on.

Similarly, if all nations go on trying to increase their wealth, production, consumption and "living standards" without limit in a world of limited resources, then we must expect increasing conflict. Rich world affluent lifestyles require us to be heavily armed and aggressive, in order to guard the empires from which we draw more than our fair share of resources. We cannot expect to achieve a peaceful world until we achieve a just world, and we cannot do that until rich countries change to much less extravagant living standards. (For the detailed argument see Note 10.)

The absurdly impossible implications of economic growth.

The foregoing argument has been that the present levels of production and consumption are quite unsustainable. They are too high to be kept going for long or to be extended to all people. But we are determined to increase present living standards and levels of output and consumption, as much as possible and without any end in sight. Our supreme national goal is economic growth. Few people seem to recognize the absurdly impossible consequences of pursing economic growth.

If we have a 3% p.a. increase in output, by 2070 we will be producing 8 times as much every year. (For 4% growth the multiple is 16.) If by then all 9 billion people expected had risen to the living standards we would have then, the total world economic output would be more than 60 times as great as it is today! Yet the present level is unsustainable. (For a 4% p.a. growth rate the multiple is 120.)

"But can't technical advance solve the problems?"

Most people assume that the development of technical advance will enable us to go on enjoying affluent lifestyles and pursuing limitless economic growth, e.g., by reducing the energy and resource inputs needed to produce things. However the magnitude of our over-consumption makes this impossible.

Perhaps the best known "technical fix" optimist, Amory Lovins, claims that we could at least double global output while halving the resource and environmental impacts, i.e., achieve a "factor 4" reduction.

Let us assume that present global resource and ecological impacts must be halved. If we in rich countries average 3% growth, and 9 billion rose to the living standards we would then have by 2070, total world output would be 60 times as great as it is today. How likely is it that technical advance will make it possible to multiply total world economic output by 60 while halving impacts, i.e., a factor 120 reduction?

Clearly we can't possibly get resource consumption and environmental impact down to sustainable levels without dramatically reducing present volumes of production and consumption, economic turnover, and present rich world "living standards". The "technical fix" optimists seriously mislead people into thinking that we can achieve a sustainable world without any reduction in consumer ways, and indeed that growth can go on. (For a detailed criticism of Lovins see Note 11.)

Greed and history

History can largely be put in terms of people struggling to grab more than their fair share of the available wealth and power. Consider the behavior of states over recent centuries, constantly jockeying diplomatically and fighting each other. Why? Simply because their people are not content to live with what they have and to organize satisfactory lifestyles for themselves within their own borders. (and also procreate at sustainable levels) There are always classes of energetic "entrepreneurs" who are not content with being wealthy; they want more, so they go out looking for additional resources and markets, and try to outmaneuver and bully their rivals. States constantly strive to increase their wealth, territory, status and power. Meanwhile "ordinary" people would have mansions and luxurious lifestyles if they could.

Yet there are many people living in what we refer to as "primitive tribes" who maintain stable social systems within stable boundaries and are not constantly seeking to outsmart or steal from their neighbors. This is not true of all tribes, but it is true of many, and it is totally foreign to Western culture with its restless urge to go out and acquire, conquer, build empires and take over markets or one way or another to get more and more. (another profound paragraph)

Most people fail to grasp these connections between greed and conflict. They wonder why there are poor nations, conflict, and poverty. Every now and then their leaders tell them their children must go to war and slaughter the children of other people just like themselves. They don’t like this much but it never occurs to them that they have brought it on their own heads, by being keen supporters and beneficiaries of the grabbing that has led to the conflict. They have been enthusiastic about the empire building, the quest for more markets, the pursuit of national prestige, the promise to raise "living standards", and they want to be members of "a great and powerful nation". Why can’t they be content to be members of a noble and admirable nation, or a caring nation, or an ecologically sustainable nation? Above all they want the high "living standards" they can't have without taking more than their fair share.

These people would angrily reject the claim that they are greedy; they only want "normal" and "nice" things and "good" standards. They do not realize that what is regarded as normal in rich countries involves levels of resource consumption that are grossly unsustainable and that condemn most of the world's people to deprivation. Essential to The Simpler Way is the understanding that affluence is an enormous moral problem because it is a basic cause of the global predicament.

Conclusions on our situation.

It should be obvious from the foregoing discussion that the present socio-economic system causes our most serious global problems. It is fundamentally, structurally incapable of solving our problems. This point cannot be exaggerated. There is no possibility of building a just, morally satisfactory and ecologically sustainable society if we allow society to be driven by market forces, the profit motive, the quest for higher "living standards" and economic growth. The faults cannot be remedied without radical change in lifestyles, patterns of settlement, the economy, political processes, and in values and world views.

Above all it must be stressed how far beyond sustainable levels of production and consumption we are. The foregoing figures show that we must develop ways of living in which we can have a good quality of life on per capita resource rates that are a small fraction of today’s rates. (could it be any more clear?)



THE WAY IT COULD BE:

AN OUTLINE OF THE GLOBAL SITUATION, THE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE SOCIETY, AND THE TRANSITION TO IT.

Part 2 (of 2)


Ted Trainer
Faculty of Arts, University of N.S.W.

For detailed documentation on the issues discussed here see
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/

For an account of The Simpler Way in the form of a 220 page "novel" describing the fictional visit of a journalist to a town which has followed The Simpler Way, see
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D80-THEWAY-Prt1-Day1-Morn.html



Section 2: THE ALTERNATIVE:
THE SIMPLER WAY

If the foregoing analysis of our situation is basically valid some of the key principles for a sustainable and just society are clear and indisputable. (For a detailed discussion see Note 12.)

Material living standards must be far less affluent. In a sustainable society per capita rates of use of resources must be far lower than those in the rich countries today.

There must be mostly small scale highly self-sufficient local economies. It will not be possible to continue anything like the present levels of transport, travel and trade.

There must be mostly co-operative and participatory systems whereby small communities control their own affairs, independent of the international and global economies. Relatively little will be done by states or centralized authorities since these are very resource-expensive, and incapable of governing all small localities. (sounds good and it is good, however there is no way in the world it would ever happen without the ending of "owning what you don't use" and with the ending of rent)

There must be much use of alternative and traditional technologies, which in general minimize the use of resources, enrich work and enable independence and empower ordinary people.

A very different economic system must be developed, one not driven by market forces or the profit motive, and in which there is no growth, and which focuses on meeting the needs of people and ecosystems.

Some very different values must become central, including cooperation, concern for the public good, frugality and material simplicity. These cultural changes are likely to be the most difficult elements in the transition. (profound statement)

The alternative way is The Simpler (but richer) Way. We can and must all live well with a much smaller amount of production, consumption, work, resource use, trade, investment and GNP than there is now. The focus of our economic and social world must move from the national and international arenas to the suburb, town and small city. (I have said this very thing, a simpler but "richer" way of life)

Unfortunately any suggestion of a move to less affluent ways is usually met with horror. The main problem here is that people do not understand that The Simpler Way is not a threat to a high quality of life or to the benefits of modern technology. The following discussion will show that in fact The Simpler Way is the key to a greatly improved quality of life, even for those who live in the richest countries. (another profound statement)

Although The Simpler Way is radically different it could be easily achieved – if enough of us opted for it. To save the planet we do not need miraculous technical break throughs, or vast amounts of investment. We just need a change in thinking and valuing. (wow, how simple could that be!)

Simpler lifestyles

Living simply does not imply any sense of deprivation or hardship. It means focusing on what is sufficient for comfort, hygiene, efficiency etc. Most of our basic needs can be met by resource-cheap devices and ways, compared with those taken for granted in consumer society where expensiveness and luxury are idolized.

Living in materially simple ways can cut enormous amounts off the money a person needs to earn. Consider housing. A perfectly adequate, and indeed beautiful house for a small family can be built for around $5000 ($A 2004). (See Note 13.) This indicates how The Simpler Way will liberate people from slavery to consumer-capitalist society, enabling most time to be put into more fulfilling activities than earning money. (to the greedy and hypocritical Puritans, what other activity is there except chores and earning money?!!!!)

Living in ways that minimize resource use should not be seen as an irksome effort that must be made in order to save the planet. These ways can become major sources of life satisfaction, for example, growing food, "husbanding" resources, making rather than buying, composting, recycling, repairing, bottling fruit, giving old things to others, making things last, living frugally and running a relatively self-sufficient household economy. The Buddhist goal is a life "simple in means but rich in ends."  (profound)

Local self-sufficiency

Section 1 showed that a sustainable and just world cannot have a globalised economy. We must develop as much self-sufficiency as we reasonably can at the national level meaning far less trade), at the household level, and especially at the neighborhood, suburban, town and local regional level. We need to convert our present dormitory suburbs into thriving little economies producing much that we need from local resources.

The domestic or household economy already accounts for about half the real national output, but this is ignored by conventional economics which only counts dollar costs. Households can again become significant producers of vegetables, fruit, poultry, preserves, fish, repairs, furniture, entertainment and leisure services, and community support.

Local economies would contain many small enterprises such as bakeries, farms, furniture making. Some of these could be decentralized branches of existing firms. Most of us could then get to work by bicycle or on foot. Many of our needs could be met through craft and hobby production. It is much more satisfying to produce many things in craft ways rather than in industrial factories. Some of these items would cost more initially, but this would not matter much given that the overall monetary cost of living in The Simpler Way would be very low. It would make sense to retain some larger mass production factories and sources of materials, such as mines and steel works and railways.

Almost all food could come from within a few hundred metres of where we live, most of it from within existing towns and suburbs. The sources would be, a) intensive home gardens, b) community gardens and cooperatives, such as poultry, orchard and fish groups, many small market gardens located within and close to suburbs and towns, d) extensive development of commons, especially for production of fruit, nuts, fish, poultry, animal grazing, herbs, bamboo and timber.

The scope for food self-sufficiency within households is extremely high. It takes .5 ha, 5,000 square metres, to feed one North American via agribusiness. However Jeavons (2002)and also Blazey (1999) document the capacity for a family of three to feed itself from less than one backyard, via intensive home gardening, high yield seeds, multi-cropping, nutrient recycling, and eating mostly plant foods. And addition backyards can produce large amounts of fruit, nuts, herbs, poultry, rabbits and fish.

Most of your neighborhood could become a Permaculture jungle, an "edible landscape" crammed with long-lived, largely self-maintaining productive plants. Much food production would involve little or no fuel use, ploughing, packaging, pesticides, marketing or transport. Having food produced close to where people live would enable nutrients to be recycled back to the soil through compost heaps, composting toilets and garbage gas units. This is imperative -- a sustainable society cannot be conceived without thorough nutrient recycling, and therefore without a local agriculture.

There would be research into finding what useful plants from all around the world thrive in your local conditions, and into the development of useful foods, materials and chemicals from these. Synthetics would be derived primarily from plant materials.

Meat consumption would be greatly reduced as we moved to more plant foods, but many small animals such as poultry, rabbits and fish would be kept in small pens spread throughout our settlements. The animals could be fed largely on kitchen and garden scraps, and by free ranging on commons, while providing manure and adding to the aesthetic and leisure resources of our settlements. Some wool, milk and leather could come from sheep and goats grazing meadows within and close to our settlements.

The commons would be of great economic and social value. These include the community owned and operated woodlots, bamboo patches, herb gardens, orchards, ponds, meadows, sheds, machinery, workshops, bicycles and vehicles. These can be located in parks, beside railway lines, on derelict factory sites, and on the many roads that will be dug up when they are no longer needed. These commons would provide many free goods, although they would be maintained by working bees and committees.

We should convert one house on each block to become a neighborhood workshop, recycling store, meeting place, surplus exchange and library. Because there will be far less need for transport, we could dig up many roads, greatly increasing city land area available for community gardens, workshops, ponds and forests.

Settlement design will focus on these basically Permaculture principles, such as the intensive use of space, complex ecosystems, stacking and use of all available niches, multiple cropping and overlapping functions e.g., poultry provide meat, eggs, feathers, pest control, cultivation, fertilizer and leisure resources. These techniques will enable huge reduction in the present land area and energy costs of food provision.

It will not be necessary for most people to be involved in agriculture. Providing food now takes perhaps one-fifth of work time, when transport, packaging and marketing are added to the farm work. That’s about eight hours a week per worker. Intensive home gardening requires about four person-hours per week per household, so averaged across the town and including small farm work food production, would probably require well below the present amount of time. The difference derives from the much greater productivity of home and small farm production, and the elimination of much intermediary work, such as transport and packaging.

In addition many materials can come from the communal woodlots, fruit trees, bamboo clumps, herb patches, ponds, clay pits, meadows, etc., including leather, oils, dyes, timber, chemicals, medicines, energy crops and clay.

One of the most important ways in which we would be highly self-sufficient would be in finance. Firstly The Simpler Way requires little capital. Most enterprises are very small, and it will not be an expanding economy. Virtually all neighborhoods have all the capital they need to develop those things that would meet their basic needs, yet this does not happen when our savings are put into conventional banks. Our capital is borrowed by distant corporations, often to do undesirable things, and not to improve our neighborhood.

We would form many small town banks from which our savings would only be lent to firms and projects that would improve our town. These banks could charge low or negative interest, or make grants.

We will couple the banks with Business Incubators which provide assistance to little firms, such as access to accountants, computers and advice from panels of the town’s most experienced business people. These two institutions will give us the power to establish in our town the enterprises and industries it needs, as distinct from being at the whim of corporations and foreign investors who will only set up in our town if that will maximize their global profits, and in any case will not set up firms to produce what we need.

We can therefore take control of our own development and make sure that it is determined by what will benefit the town, cut its imports, minimize ecological impacts, eliminate waste and provide livelihoods.

These many and diverse structures, firms and activities will make our locality into a very leisure-rich environment. Most suburbs at present are leisure deserts. The alternative neighborhood would be full of familiar people, small businesses, industries, farms, lakes, common projects, animals, gardens, forests, windmills, waterwheels, and familiar people and therefore full of interesting things to do or observe. Consequently people would be less inclined to travel on weekends and holidays, which would greatly reduce national energy consumption.

This shows how the solution to many problems will mostly involve carrots rather than sticks. We will reduce travel not by penalties but by eliminating the need for most of it, by ensuring that work and leisure sites are close to where we live.

To repeat, a high level of domestic and local economic self-sufficiency is crucial if we are to dramatically reduce overall resource use. It will cut travel, transport and packaging costs, and the need to build freeways, ships and airports etc. It will also enable our communities to become secure from devastation by distant economic events, such as depressions, devaluations, interest rate rises, trade wars, capital flight, and exchange rate changes.

Local self-sufficiency means we will be highly dependent on our region and our community and the significance of this for several important themes cannot be exaggerated. Because most of our food, energy, materials, leisure activity, artistic experience and community will come from the soils, forests, people, ecosystems and social systems close around us. We will all recognize the extreme importance of keeping these in good shape. If we do not do this we will have to pay dearly for imported goods and services. This will force us to think constantly about the maintenance of our ecological, technical and social systems. This will be the main reason why we will treat our ecosystems well -- because if we don’t we will soon wish we had.

Energy

The Simpler Way will dramatically cut the demand for energy and materials. Firstly, it will be a stable economy so maintenance of frugal structures will generate very different resource demands compared with a growth economy, in which construction and development are intensive.

In general solar passive building design will greatly reduce the need for space heating and cooling. As explained above, almost no energy will be needed for food production. Only a little will be needed for pumping clean and waste water, as these will be collected and dealt with locally. The need for transport, packaging and marketing will be greatly reduced. Most leisure needs will be met within the settlement at little energy cost. Industrial production will be greatly reduced, and most of it will take place in small local enterprises operating in labour intensive ways. Only a little heavy industry will be needed, e.g. basic steel, railways, buses, and thus mining and timber industries will be small. There will be little need for shipping or air transport. Most cooking would be by (wood?) my question mark or gas produced from biomass. (The next section includes further energy detail.)
Land Areas and Footprint.

Following is a rough, indicative pattern of settlement and land areas. The approximate vision is for a landscape in which towns of 250 households and 1000 people are located 2 km part, centre to centre, and therefore within an area of 400 ha. Every 10 km there might be a large town, on a railway line, and very small cities might be 100 km apart. Their suburbs would be more or less like the town described below.

If the settled area of our town is 700m across it will occupy 50 ha. If the typical area occupied by roads in an outer Sydney suburb is assumed, but reduced by 3/4 in view of the much lower need for vehicles, roads would occupy about 2 ha, and railways about 1 ha. Converted roads would add about 6.5 ha to commons. Commons within the settlement would occupy about 10.5 ha.

As has been explained above virtually all food needs except grain and dairy could be met within the settled area, but there would be small farms and plantations outside it. These would supply grain, fiber, wool, timber, dairy products, and energy.

If each household had on average 15 useful trees, and these were also planted on half the commons at 4mx4m spacing there would be 7000 trees within the settlement. If half of these were fruit and nut trees yielding c 10 t/ha/y, annual per capita production might be c 110 kg, plenty for people and animals. (Some tree crop yields are higher than this.)

If produced from wheat or corn, flour might require 35 ha just outside the settled area, assuming 200 kg per capita consumption p.a., and 6t/ha yield. However it can be produced at up to three times this yield from tree cops such as carob, algaroba, chestnut and oak, without the energy cost of annual crops.

Timber requirements in a stable economy would be very small. If 50 kg per capita/y is assumed, 7 ha would be required, at 7t/ha/y harvest. Half of this might be located on commons within the settlement. Firewood for heating and cooking within very well insulated solar passive houses might double this area required.

Water is assumed to come from local sources, including rooftop collection of rainfall, and from small dams etc., plus intensive mulching and recycling.

Dairy products might require 45 ha, assuming 100kg per person p.a., 900kg per cow p.a., and 2.5 cows per ha.

Wool might require 25-30 ha of grassland, but all of this might be found within the settlement and the surrounding plantations (assuming 2kg per person p.a., 25 sheep per ha., and 3.2 kg clean wool per sheep p.a.) Another almost negligible area would be required for cotton etc fibres, assuming 5 tonnes per ha yield.

The area per town to be set aside for its share of the regional industry, hospitals, colleges, universities, and services would be very small. For example, a tertiary educational institution of 3 ha serving 10 towns averages only 3 square metres per person, or .3 ha per town.

Adding these areas indicates that 150 ha, 38% of a town’s total 400 ha area would be used for purposes other than energy supply.

Energy supply sets the biggest problems. First let’s consider the land area that would be required to meet present Australian per capita oil plus gas demand of 117PJ. If this was all to come from biomass at 7t/ha via methanol produced at the equivalent of 34 gallons of petrol (net) per tonne of biomass input, then our town situated in 400 ha would need to harvest 3750 ha of forest! (That is the per capita footprint for this item alone would be 3.75 ha.) In addition a large area would be needed to fuel electricity generators (below).

Let us therefore assume a very austere energy budget, derived from 100 ha devoted to plantations for energy production, (plus where possible PV, wind, garbage gas, hydro, solar heating panels, within the town, and a share of the national hydro and wind supply from without). For this discussion Sydney’s latitude, 34 degrees, is assumed; for colder climates the problem would be significantly greater.

Electricity supply would not be so problematic, if extremely frugal use is assumed. Based on records from my homestead, a family of three could meet its electricity needs on about .6kWh/day. (Lights, computer, TV, duct fans, some machinery, but no air-conditioning, electric stove, fridge or washing machine.) This is about 1/50 the typical Sydney household use. The town would therefore need 200kWh/d for domestic needs. The half of this that does not have to be stored might come from a combination of solar PV, solar thermal and wind. (Energy from these sources is likely to remain much too costly and difficult to store.) One quarter might come from hydro and one quarter from the burning of wood, both quantities via generators that can be turned up when intermittent inputs are not available. To meet this demand via a 22% efficient process (i.e., taking in energy used in growing and harvesting as well as generating efficiency) the town would need 10 ha of forest harvested at 7t/ha/y.

Gas for cooking and refrigeration would come from biomass, mostly wood, but it would include the approximately 500 tonnes of kitchen, toilet, garden and animal wastes p. a. flowing through methane digesters on their way to gardens. The quantity of energy derivable from this source is surprising, probably 3000 cubic metres of gas p.a. Use of refrigerators would have to be very frugal. Community facilities might be necessary, along with solar-passive evaporative coolers ("Koolgardie safes"). Access to local fresh food would eliminate most need for refrigeration.

Liquid fuels are the big problem. If the remaining 90 ha produced methanol at the equivalent of 34 gallons of petrol (net) per tonne of biomass input, and a 7t/ha/y yield, then 2672 GJ would be produced p.a. Averaged over the 1000 people in the town this is only 2.3% of the present Australian per capita oil plus gas use. If we assume methanol production can be improved to be 1.4 times as efficient (= 45 gal petrol/t) and a four fold improvement in the energy efficiency of the whole energy system, we would still have to get by on about one-eighth of the present Australian Per capita oil and gas use. This should be achievable via The Simpler Way, because there would be so little transport, construction, manufacturing or agricultural energy use.

The above figures yield an overall footprint per capita of .25 ha. However the national average footprint would be greater than in the example town because people living in bigger towns and in the cities would be more dependent on imported goods, materials and energy, and the above tally does not include things like heavy industry, railways, steel and centralised services (e.g., higher education.) These might raise the per capita footprint to .5 ha, still below the .8 that would be available in a world of 9 billion.

If we find that more energy is needed than the above .1 ha per person can produce, we will have to resort to biomass plantations further afield, or to locate our settlements more distant from each other to make room for these plantations. Footprint considerations limit this option severely. If we developed plantations which increased the per capita footprint from c .25 ha to .65, the additional .4 ha would yield only another 44 PJ in gross energy, or if converted into methanol, only 12.5 GJ per person, compared with the Australian present average energy use of 117 GJ/y.

Note again that these numbers have been rough approximations intended to indicate the general scale of the problems, and the general feasibility of the town model presented. They provide a base for others to work out the implications of different assumptions.

More Communal, Participatory and Cooperative ways.

The third essential characteristic of the alternative way is that it must be very communal, participatory and cooperative. Firstly, we must share many things. We could have a few stepladders, electric drills, etc., in the neighborhood workshop, as distinct from one in every house.

We would be on various voluntary rosters, committees and working bees to carry out most of the windmill maintenance, construction of public works, child minding, nursing, basic educating and care of aged and disadvantaged people in our area, as well as to perform most of the functions councils now carry out for us, such as maintaining our own parks and streets. In addition working bees and committees would maintain the many commons. We would therefore need far fewer bureaucrats and professionals, reducing the amount of income we would have to earn to pay taxes. (When we contribute to working bees we are paying some of our tax.)

Especially important would be the regular voluntary community working bees. Just imaging how rich your neighborhood would now be if every Saturday afternoon for the past five years there had been a voluntary working bee doing something that would make it a more pleasant place for all to live.

There would be far more community than there is now. People would know each other and be interacting on communal projects. Because all would realize that their welfare depended heavily on how well we looked after each other and our ecosystems, there would be powerful incentives for mutual concern, facilitating the public good, and making sure others were content. The situation would be quite different to consumer-capitalist society where there is little incentive on individuals to care for others or their community.

One would certainly predict a huge decrease in the incidence of personal and social problems and their dollar and social costs. The new neighborhood would surely be a much healthier and happier place to live, especially for older people.

Our life experience will mainly be enriched not by personal wealth or talents, but main by having access to public things like a beautiful landscape containing many forests, ponds, animals, herb patches, bamboo clumps, clay pits, little farms and firms, and leisure opportunities close to home, a neighborhood workshop, many cultural and artistic groups and skilled people to learn from, community festivals and celebrations and a thriving and supportive community.

Government and politics.

The political situation would be very different compared with today. There would be genuine participatory democracy. This would be made possible by the smallness of scale, and it would be vitally necessary. Big centralized governments cannot run our small localities. That can only be done by the people who live there because they are the only ones who understand the ecosystem, who know what will grow best there, how often frosts occur, how people there think and what they want, what the traditions are what strategies will and won’t work there, etc.

Most of our local policies and programs could be worked out by elected unpaid committees and we could all vote on the important decisions concerning our small area at regular town meetings. There would still be some functions for state and national governments, but relatively few, and there will be a role for some international agencies, treaties etc.

Big social institutions, such as states, can only be run by a tiny few with immense power. These then tend to become arrogant and secretive, and are easily seduced, bought or fooled by the richest and most powerful groups in society. Therefore the smallness of scale we will be forced to by resource scarcity will liberate us from rule by centralized governments, and from representative democracy.

Thus our dependence on our ecosystems and social systems will also radically transform politics. The focal concern will be what policies will work best for the region. Politics will not be primarily about individuals and groups in zero-sum competition to get what they want from a central state. There will be powerful incentives towards a much more collectivist outlook. There will be strong incentives to find solutions all are content with, because we will always be highly dependent on good will, people turning up to committees, working bees, celebrations and town meetings. We will therefore be keen to find and do whatever will contribute to town solidarity and cohesion. The town will work best if there is a minimum of discontent, conflict, inequality or perceived injustice, so all will recognize the need to avoid decisions that leave some unhappy. Thus the situation of dependence on our ecosystems and on each other will require and reinforce concern for the public good, a more collectivist outlook, taking responsibility, involvement, and thinking about what’s best for the town. (very profound)

The core governing institutions will be voluntary committees, town meetings, direct votes on issues, and especially informal public discussion in everyday situations. In a sound self-governing community the fundamental political processes take place informally in cafes, kitchens and town squares, because this is where the issues can be discussed and thought about until the best solution comes to be generally recognized. The chances of a policy working out well depend on how content everyone is with it. Consensus and commitment are best achieved through a slow and sometimes clumsy process of formal and informal consideration in which the real decision making work is done long before the meeting when the vote is taken. So politics will again become participatory and part of everyday life, as was the case in Ancient Greece. Note that this is not optional; we must do things in these participatory ways or the right decisions for the town will not be made.

The political situation described is totally different to that of consumer-capitalist society. It is in fact classical anarchism. In general people at the local level will govern themselves via informal discussion, referenda and town meetings. We will not be governed by centralized authoritarian states and bureaucracies. Most issues will be local, not national, but there will be some tasks left for states and national governments via professional experts and administrators, such as coordinating national steel and railway industries. However, most monitoring, reviewing and administration could be carried out by voluntary committees. (People will have a lot of time for these activities; see below.)

Because it will be a stable economy many political issues will have been eliminated, such as over new developments, rezoning, freeway construction, increasing logging or mining, and especially those to do with trade, foreign investment and finance. Many problems such as unemployment and welfare will either not exist or could be handled at the local level, again decreasing the need for centralized bureaucracy.

Where issues involve wider regions than the town, such as concerning a river catchment, all towns can send delegates to meetings at which options are thought out, but people in the towns will retain the power to make the decisions. When all people in the town can attend town meetings and have their say there is no need to give power to representatives and there is no need for political parties.

Technology.

The Simpler Way is not opposed to modern technologies. In fact there will be more resources for research and development on the things that matter, such as medicine, than there are now, when the vast sums presently wasted on unnecessary products, and arms, cease being spent.

However it is a mistake to think better technology is important in solving global problems, let alone the key. Much R and D and innovation today is going into trivial, wasteful or luxurious products. Most of the things we need in The Simpler Way can be produced by traditional technologies. Hand tools can produce excellent food, clothes, furniture, houses, etc., and craft production is in general the most satisfying way to produce. Of course we will use machinery where that makes sense and many basic items can be made in automated factories. There can be intensive research all the time into improving crops and techniques, especially for deriving chemicals, drugs and materials from local sources. There will be more resources than at present to invest in realms that have "spiritual" significance rather than economic value, such as astronomy, history, philosophy, the arts and humanities.

(Continued in Part 3.)



THE WAY IT COULD BE:

AN OUTLINE OF THE GLOBAL SITUATION, THE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE SOCIETY, AND THE TRANSITION TO IT.

Part 3 (of 4)

Ted Trainer
Faculty of Arts, University of N.S.W.


The new economy

There is no chance of making these changes while we retain the present economic system. The fundamental principle in a satisfactory economy would be totally different – it would be to apply the available productive capacity to producing what all people need for a good life, with as little resource consumption, work and waste as possible in ecologically sustainable ways. Our present economy operates on totally different principles. It lets profit maximization for the few who own most capital determine what is done, it therefore does not meet the needs of most people, and it seeks to increase consumption and GDP constantly.

THE WAY IT COULD BE:

AN OUTLINE OF THE GLOBAL SITUATION, THE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE SOCIETY, AND THE TRANSITION TO IT.

Part 3 (of 4)

Ted Trainer
Faculty of Arts, University of N.S.W.

For detailed documentation on the issues discussed here see
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/

Market forces and the profit motive. In the far distant future what is produced, how it is distributed, and what is to be developed will be relatively unimportant problems decided without fuss by routine rational decision making process which focus on what is needed, etc. Humans will preoccupy themselves with more important things. However at present we are far from being capable of organizing things that way, so in the near future it would seem wise to work for an interim arrangement which still uses the market but begins to subject it to greater social control.

Section 1 showed that market forces cannot be allowed to continue as major determinants of economic affairs in an acceptable alternative economy. Even if we prevented market forces from generating unjust outcomes, the fundamental motivation within them is not acceptable. In markets prices are set as high as possible, which means that the driving principle is greed. Price is not set by reference to the cost of production, or the capacity of the seller to make a sufficient income, etc. Markets are about suppliers trying to get as rich as possible, and that is not a satisfactory element in an ideal society.

In a satisfactory society the basic economic priorities must be decided according to what is socially desirable, by discussion and debate and deliberate, rational decision. However, much of the economy we should work for in the near future could remain as a (carefully monitored) form of private enterprise carried on by small firms, households and cooperatives. Market forces could operate in carefully regulated sectors. For example the colour of bicycles on sale could be left entirely to the market. Local market days could enable individuals and families to sell small amounts of garden and craft produce. In other words market forces might be allowed to make most of the economic decisions – but none of the important ones!

Note that such an economy would not be a capitalist economy because these small firms would best regarded as the tools people work with to gain a modest, stable income and thus a secure livelihood. They do not involve investing capital in order to accumulate capital in order to constantly increase investments and wealth. Market forces would never be allowed to settle the distribution of income or the access to livelihood.

In the present economy the notion of having firms under social control is taken to mean big centralized bureaucracies and states. These can be entirely avoided by devolving the control to small localities where citizens can deal with a greatly reduced economic agenda through direct and participatory procedures. Again, because local conditions and resources, skills and traditions are the important factors determining how local economies can best function, local people are the ones who know these and are in the best position to make the decisions most likely to satisfy local needs. It will make no sense for distant governments to decide what is best for your town to plant when another of its parking lots has been dug up. Thus the form of social control here has nothing to do with "big-state socialism", as socialism is usually conceived and has mostly been practised.

In making these decisions communities can take into account all relevant moral, social and ecological considerations, not just dollar costs and benefits to capitalists or purchasers. If a firm was struggling, or becoming inefficient we would not let market forces dump those workers or owners into unemployment. We would make community decisions about what to do. We might work out whether assistance, including loans and grants from the town bank, would be appropriate, or whether technical advice is needed. Thus a community might decide to keep a small bakery or boot repair firm going because that is best for the town and for the family running it. Or it might decide that it has to many bakeries, and work out how best those resources might be reorganized.

Similarly the community might decide not to buy from a firm that is sacking people unnecessarily, or threatening to take over other little firms that are viable, depriving people of their livelihoods.

In other words we will be able to ensure that town development is based on all relevant considerations, and not settled by solely by what is most profitable. This means we will be in a position to retain or establish some firms that are important for the town even though they would not survive in a free market situation. These actions protect and subsidize, and therefore impose costs. Goods would be cheaper if purchased from a transnational corporation which can minimize prices. But these costs are among those we will be willing to pay in order to make the town run well.

Provision of livelihood. Above all these strategies will enable us to ensure that all have a livelihood. This is of very great importance. The conventional economy sees no problem in allowing those who are most rich and powerful to take or destroy the business, markets and livelihoods of others, and thus accumulate to a few the wealth that was spread among many. Its fundamental design constantly worsens this problem. Globalization is essentially about the elimination of the livelihoods of millions of people and the transfer of their business to a few giant corporations. A satisfactory society will not let this happen. One of its supreme priorities will be to ensure that all have a livelihood, and clearly this is only possible if local communities have control of their own local economic development and can operate contrary to market forces.

Although most firms might be privately owned, we would regard the economy as ours; i.e.,, as arrangements and institutions which the town "owns" and runs in order to provide itself with the goods and services it need and to provide its people with livelihoods. So if a transnational corporation came into the town intending to drive our bakery bankrupt and take its business, we could make sure it totally failed to do so –- simply by refusing to buy from it. Obviously things like this can not be done without vigilant, caring, public spirited citizens. Note how the new economic system cannot be thought of separately from the new political system, and neither can function without new values, a new culture.

The bank and the business incubator. As has been explained, these will be crucial in giving us control over our own local economic development. We can set up the kinds of firms we want.

Overlapping sectors . One sector of the new economy would still use cash. In another market forces would be allowed to operate. One sector would be fully planned and under participatory social control. One would be run by cooperatives. One large sector would be cashless, involving household production, barter, mutual aid, working bees, gifts, i.e., just giving away surpluses), and the totally free goods from the commons.

Economic self sufficiency should be seen in terms of concentric circles. In the centre is the most important economic and social unit, the household. (This will be more important in most people’s lives than their "career". Outside this will be the neighborhood, then the suburb or town where less frequently needed goods and services will be available, e.g., doctors. Then the town’s surrounding area will contain a dairy, timber plantations, grain and grazing lands, and some of the factories that would supply into the surrounding region, e.g., for fridges and radios. Some of these items would be exported out of the region. Much less will come from the state and national economic sectors, and very little from overseas, perhaps some high tech medical or computer equipment.

Few big firms or transnational corporations would be needed. Those that were appropriate, such as steel works, would best be owned and run by society as a whole, to serve society. The boards of bigger firms would represent stakeholders, not just shareholders. All people would have some stake in the firm, including its workers, customers and neighbors.

There would hardly be any finance industry. Little capital would be needed, because it would not be a growth economy. Construction for example would mainly be replacement of old buildings, bridges etc. Security in old age, and a continuing valued role, will be provided by the community (overseen by the relevant committee), so there will be little need for the "retirement industry" or for financial planners. Old people will continue to contribute as they felt able, they would need few special premises or professional carers, and therefore they will generate much less work and cost than at present.

There would be no interest paid on money lent. An economy in which interest can be received is by definition a growth economy. Thus loans would be repaid plus a fee to cover administrative costs. Banks would be society’s agencies for providing the capital needed to maintain or reorganize the enterprises society needs. Like all other firms their role would be to provide services and livelihoods charging only as much as is necessary to cover costs, as distinct from seeking to maximize dividends for absent shareholders.

Far less work and production will take place. In consumer society there is an astronomical level of more or less unnecessary production going into things like advertising, packaging transport, construction, cosmetics, waste disposal, sewage treatment, shipping, insurance, junking shoddy goods that don’t last and can’t be repaired, roads and freeways, unemployment agencies, and provision for people who crack up and become mentally ill or take to alcohol or drugs. We will need far less aged care, financial advice, paid entertainment, health care, professionals, car repairs. We will save billions by not having to produce arms any more! Many of the things we will need will be produced far less resource-expensive ways, for example we will not need to produce trucks to bring food to cities. There will be far less government, crime, police, illness and need for a "welfare" industry. Consequently there would be far less need for prisons, courts, hospitals, welfare agencies. The savings in dollars and resources would be enormous, not to mention the effects on quality of life. Disabled people will have many important things to do and to contribute, which will reduce the need for tax and professionals to care for them. People will have far more interesting things to do than go shopping, and acquiring and consuming will not be important life purposes. (profound)

Many shops would open only two or three days a week. If you need a pair of shoes you might get them on Tuesday or Saturday. In familiar neighborhoods some shops and local firms might operate without shop assistants, via stalls where you serve yourself, further reducing the amount of work that needs doing.

Unemployment and poverty could easily be eliminated. There are none in the Israeli Kibbutz settlements. We would have neighborhood work coordination committees who would make sure that all who wanted work had a share of the work that needed doing. Far less work would need to be done than at present. (In consumer society we probably work three times too hard!) The warped economics of consumer-capitalist society generates a desperate need to "create more jobs", but we will simply be able to eliminate all unnecessary work and production now going on, because our economy will be about applying only as much of the available productive capacity as is needed to produce what is sufficient.

Only one or two days a week working for money! When we eliminate all that unnecessary production, and shift much of the remainder to backyards, local small business and cooperatives, and into the non-cash sector of the economy, most of us will have little need to go to work for money in an office or a mass production factory. In other words it will become possible to live well on a very low cash income earned by only one or two days paid work per week. We could spend the other 5 or 6 days working/playing around the neighborhood doing many varied and interesting and useful things everyday.

The Simpler Way there will be far less emphasis on work and production and economic affairs, and therefore, much less stress and worry, and human attention can shift to much more important things.

There would be no economic growth. We would produce only as much as is needed to provide all with a high quality of life. In fact we would always be looking for ways of reducing the amount of work, production and resource use. It should be obvious that this does not mean there cannot be improvement and innovation.

Nor does reducing the GDP mean that the living standards of the poorest must sink even lower than they are now. The goal is to enable all to have access to all the things that make a high quality of life possible regardless of income, such as community workshops, festivals, free fruit, a livelihood, a caring community and a leisure rich environment, regardless of their income. The average dollar income and GDP per person would be far lower than they are now, people would be far less wealthy in conventional dollar terms, but the quality of life of all could be far higher than the average now. One will need very little money to live well, and one’s money income or wealth will be an insignificant determinant of one’s quality of life. Again this will derive primarily from one’s public and social context, such as the landscape, festivals, and social networks. (profound)

Economic motivation, competition, incentives, efficiency and restructuring. These are the most difficult issues for the design of a satisfactory economy. The present economy leaves these matters to the market system, which acts quickly and decisively to maximize efficiency (defined narrowly in terms of monetary costs and benefits of production) but does so in an unacceptably brutal, unjust and wasteful way.

In the far distant future economic affairs will be of very minor importance and will be settled by rational and deliberate social planning and decision making. Unfortunately at present humans are not sufficiently wise to do this well, especially when they try to do it via big centralized bureaucracies. It seems therefore that in the near future we will have to think in terms of a role for market forces, but one subject to local social control. The best way to do this can’t be detailed in advance; we must be prepared to grope towards the best mixture of freedom and control.

At one end of the continuum the town would act totally contrary to market forces to facilitate some activities, and ban others, such as the takeover of all small bakeries by a transnational corporation. Again vigilant, aware citizens, who know that economics is about far more than the lowest price, would simply refuse to buy from that firm. At the other end of the scale many trivial issues could be left entirely to market forces.

But what if one of our bakeries starts to become inefficient, or if someone wants to set up another bakery when we probably have enough, believing he can do the job more efficiently than the others? And if all knew that the town would not let market forces dump them into bankruptcy, what would ensure that firms kept on their toes?

In these cases the town would have a problem which It would have to grapple with deliberately and not leave to market forces. It might examine the situation and decide to help a failing firm to lift its game, possibly with advice, loans or training. It might eventually decide a firm is no longer viable or needed, but it would restructure sensibly, by working out how to relocate that family and re deploy the resources. The town might decide to let the new bakery compete with the others, then intervene when it is clear which one would best be phased out. Remember that all people would realize that the supreme goal is to organize for all people in the town to have a livelihood and for there to be just enough firms to provide the town with the things it needs.

In general the force that would keep firms on their toes would be the feedback from the townspeople, ever ready to comment in a friendly way when they suspect that the firm could be more effective, and to suggest ideas for improved performance. It is in the interests of people to help their local firms to perform well, so it is likely that conscientiousness and helpfulness would prevail on both sides.

Most people would probably work diligently enough if they had a worthwhile livelihood and were close to those who benefit from their work. In our new society people will not work for money. They may receive money when they work but that will be incidental. They will work because they like doing that kind of productive activity, and because they like seeing it contribute to the maintenance of a satisfactory community around them. The new town situation described will help to move "businessmen" towards a more collectivist, less greedy and self-interested motivation, seeing their role as serving the town by providing necessary items, while earning a constant income via a worthwhile livelihood

We would also have formal arrangements and institutions for this task of ensuring that firms remain efficient, i.e., committees which monitor, research and advise firms, for example by being aware of the performance of firms in other regions, by arranging visits, sharing of information, running "courses", and inspecting books. These would not be policing operations. The purposes would be positive, i.e., to ensure that our firms are functioning well. Loans, grants and sources of assistance might be suggested. Keep in mind that after the transition to The Simpler Way is complete getting rich will not be very important to people. It will not be necessary for security, and there will be other more rewarding purposes. On the other hand keeping their community in good shape will be important to people, so there will not be so many entrepreneurs striving to capture all the business they can. Again this is the long term goal, and it is impossible without marked change in values and outlooks.

Money.

One of the most absurd things about the present economy is the money supply system. Almost all of the new money that is constantly put into circulation is created by banks when they make loans. These loans then have to be paid back plus interest, so not only does debt increase all the time but it cannot all be paid off (because only the amount of money corresponding to the loan is created and put into circulation yet the amount to be repaid is greater than this.) The system also fuels the growth imperative, because borrowers must always strive to increase their income to pay the loan plus interest.

However the most ridiculous consequence is that governments borrow heavily from private banks and therefore pay back to them many billions of dollars of taxpayers money in interest –- when that would be totally avoided if governments set up their own banks and used them to put new money into circulation as loans and grants. This is what used to be done. It avoids paying huge sums to the shareholders of private banks when this is totally unnecessary. It would also give governments power to influence development, by favoring particular ventures with their lending policy.

In the period of transition to The Simpler Way local communities will create their own new money systems and currencies (e.g., LETS). This "new money" can be thought of as IOUs. We will simply organize people who previously were idle and poor to start producing things for each other and selling them using a form of IOU to keep track of the value each person has created and given or received. This will enable all those who were cut out of economic activity to produce and sell, via a new sector which uses this new "money".

However when The Simpler Way has been established there will not be a need for alternative or local currencies will not be needed. The main problem they solve, enabling economic activity among excluded people, will have been eliminated. Their other major effect, getting people to buy from local suppliers because the money is not used further afield, will also happen regardless of the currency used because people will understand the importance of local purchasing.

There will only be a very small financial sector, mostly in the form of town banks, because there will be little large scale investment in a stable economy, little international trade, foreign exchange, stock market activity etc.

It is important to re-think the concept of capital. For most development none will need to be borrowed. Consider a town which wants to build a community hall, and "owns" surrounding forests and clay pits and has access to its own labor via working bees. It would make no sense to borrow a lot of money to hire contractors to supply these inputs and build the hall, then pay them back twice as mush as was borrowed, when the townspeople could build the hall themselves using their timber and mud and working bees, where necessary recording who owes who for what inputs. The monetary debts incurred could be paid off later from income received from renting the hall for various events.

Obviously regions and nations are in an even better position to do such things as they have more resources within them to draw on. Thus the present taken-for-granted dependence on money markets can be seen to be a bonanza for the rich, since it means that instead of doing many things for ourselves without borrowing capital, we go to them and maybe pay them twice as much as it would cost us even if we had to buy the inputs with money, which in general can be avoided (e.g., if the town plants its own forests.)

The implications for Third World Development. At present conventional development theory and practice are failing to bring about satisfactory development for billions of Third World people. This is to be expected when development is conceived only in capitalist terms; i.e., as a process whereby those with capital invest it in order to make as much money as possible. Good profits can’t be made developing what is most needed, so the productive resources of any Third World countries are mostly put into developing industries to serve the rich, or there is no development at all.

Yet in any country there is immense productive capacity which only needs organizing so that people can get together to produce for themselves most of the things they need for a reasonable quality of life, trading only a few surpluses in order to import a few necessities. The Simpler Way enables even the poorest countries to work miracles with very little capital, using mostly local land, labour and traditional technologies, preserving traditions and ecosystems, and avoiding dependence on foreign investors, loans, trade or the predatory global market.

Consider workers being paid 15 cents an hour making goods for export, which they then have to spend on food etc imported from rich countries. Clearly it would be far better for them if they could devote their time to cooperative work in their own households, little farms and firms, using local resources to produce basic necessities. In principle therefore the dreadful problems of Third World poverty and deprivation could be very quickly eliminated, but only if conventional economic theory and practice are scrapped and replaced by Simpler Way principles.


The new values and worldview.

The biggest and most difficult changes will have to be in values and outlooks. The foregoing changes in economy, geography, agriculture and politics cannot work unless people think and act according to some quite different attitudes and habits compared to those dominant today. This again is crucial. You cannot design a sustainable and just society full of competitive, acquisitive individualists! It is therefore a serious mistake to say, "But we want a path to sustainability that will work for us, for ordinary people." The point is there isn’t one! That’s like asking for a path to slimness for people who refuse to even think about reducing gluttony.

The present desire for affluent-consumer living standards must be largely replaced by a willingness to live very simply, cooperatively and self-sufficiently. People must be conscientious, caring responsible citizens, eager to come to working bees, to think about social issues, and participate in self government. They must be sociologically sophisticated, aware of the crucial importance of cohesion, cooperation, conflict resolution, etc. They must have a strong collectivist outlook. They must understand and care about the global situation. Above all they must willingly choose and find satisfaction in materially simpler lifestyles.

It is not that everyone has to become a saint before we can save the planet. It is a matter of degree. The Simpler Way can’t work unless the general level of cooperation, responsibility, frugality etc within society becomes sufficient. This does not mean everyone must always attend all working bees. It means that there must be a considerable willingness to do such things. In fact many could be less than ideal citizens so long as the averaged commitment is good enough. This means that the town’s fate will not be jeopardized by those who do not pull their weight, so long as enough do.

This more collectivist ethos need not set any threat to individual freedom or privacy. We can still have our own private houses, property, values, religious views, interests and goals. It’s just that we must also have some strong common values. (I might question individual "houses")

Again we should appreciate the positive effect of our dependence on our local ecosystems and community. This situation will powerfully reinforce good values. It will be obvious to all people that it is in their interests to cooperate, come to working bees and meetings, be responsible, think about issues, and care for their local ecosystems. If we don’t all do these things the local ecosystems and social systems we depend on will deteriorate and we will all be in seriously trouble. More importantly, doing these things will be enjoyable. It’s nice to go to working bees. It will not be a matter of forcing ourselves to practice the right values. The new society will not work unless people find it enjoyable to do these things, and the situation will make this likely

These conditions will restore the "earth-bonding" that has been lost in consumer-capitalist society. We will be much more aware of and appreciative of our land. We will feel that we belong to our "place", and therefore we will be much more inclined to care for it.

The difference between these values land those dominant today is so great that at first one might conclude there is no possibility of a general shift to The Simpler Way. It constitutes a fundamental break with some of the core elements in Western Culture, especially regarding competitive individualism, power and domination, and acquisitiveness. However it is again best seen as not as a need to forego satisfactions in order to save the planet, but as the substitution of new and different sources of life satisfaction.

The Simpler Way will deliver many deeply rewarding experiences and conditions such as a much more relaxed pace, having to spend relatively little time working for money, having varied, enjoyable and worthwhile work to do, experiencing a supportive community, giving and receiving, growing some of one’s own food, keeping old clothes and devices in use, running a resource-cheap and efficient household, living in a supportive and caring community, practicing arts and crafts, participating in community activities, having a rich cultural experience involving local festivals, performances, arts and celebrations, being involved in governing one’s own community, living in a nice environment, and especially knowing that you are not contributing to global problems through over-consumption.

Only if these alternative values and satisfactions, which contradict those of consumer society, become the main factors motivating people can The Simpler Way be achieved. Our main task is to help people to see how important these benefits and satisfactions are, and therefore to grasp that moving to The Simpler Way will greatly improve their quality of life. This understanding will be the most powerful force we can develop for bringing about the transition.

(Copntinued in part 4.)



THE WAY IT COULD BE:

AN OUTLINE OF THE GLOBAL SITUATION, THE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE SOCIETY, AND THE TRANSITION TO IT.

Part 4 (of 4)

Ted Trainer
Faculty of Arts, University of N.S.W.

For detailed documentation on the issues discussed here see
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/

Education.

The Simpler Way cannot work without a distinctive culture, a complex set of particular ideas, habits and values. These must be developed in young members of society, and reinforced and maintained in others. Thus Education is of central importance, and here again the differences between what we need and what we have in consumer-capitalist society today are extreme.

Not much Education takes place in the schools and universities of consumer-capitalist society today. They are very effective at producing the personnel that kind of society requires. They develop the highly skilled and diligent workers that the corporations want, they condition people to uncritical acceptance of the structures and values of society, the need to obey authorities, to compete, to accept inequality, to work hard, be individualistic, to think their school grade legitimizes their social privilege or deprivation. They come to see a competitive market based society as normal. They are stupefied into the docile mindless acquiescence that ensures that consumer-capitalist society will not be seriously questioned. Just reflect on the fact that people in rich countries are “educated” for at least 15 years, yet they even graduate from university almost totally ignorant about, and indifferent to, the alarming faults and problems in their society and in the global economy. The global predicament exists essentially because people in rich countries show so little awareness and concern. This is not surprising because curricula give little or no attention to the critical issues. A glance at what is taught shows that these institutions train personnel for capitalist-consumer society – they are obviously not organized for the purpose of Educating. (Important!!!)

The Simpler Way requires any one individual to have many skills. The norm will be the “jack of all trades” or handyman, who may also be more or less expert in one or a few specialism's

Yet we probably would not have any schools, and might not need only a few paid teachers. Most of the necessary skills would be learned from living in the community. Children would be helping adults plan, make, grow and fix things much of the time. All adults would be teachers almost all the time, helping all children to learn these skills, because all would know how important it is for as many as possible have these skills. Because the activities are interesting, there will be no difficulty getting these things learned.

These many practical activities would be directly connected to the learning of the background theory, through the organization of learning groups, well-researched course materials, networks of experts and the constant efforts of adults to make the connections clear to young groups. For example if a car port is being converted into a greenhouse, the helpers could be introduced to the relevant theory of heat transfer, insulation, energy calculations, pumps, 12 volt wiring etc. Regular or ad hoc ”courses” could be organized. Remember there will be a great deal of time available for teaching and learning. Some set classes might be appropriate, but in general it is likely that children will learn basic skills at a satisfactory pace through these informal processes.

The biggest difference with consumer-capitalist society would be that Education would not be obsessed with the arduous 12 year struggle to get the certificates that give entry to the scarce high paying careers. This “meritocratic” rat race involves children in thousands of hours of work learning things most of them have no interest in and will never use, simply in order to have a better chance at getting a more secure job. This is a vast unrecognized human rights abuse. It is the theft of several thousand hours of life. For most people this is involves a huge amount of work for which they not only get little or no intellectual, personal or spiritual benefit, in many people it actually does a great deal of intellectual harm. The “hidden curriculum” teaches many that they are not very bright and therefore do not deserve good jobs, it teaches them thinking and creating are not for them, it teaches them that academic pursuits are what really matter, that “high achievers” deserve more privileges, and that arts and crafts and gardening and hobbies are not very important. It keeps them appallingly ignorant of global politics and of problems in their society. It stultifies their critical faculties. As radical educators have long pointed out, schools reproduce consumer-capitalist society very effectively, but they don’t do much educating. (Very Important)

In The Simpler Way, one’s chances of having a satisfying life would not depend on one’s academic credentials. They would depend on the quality of the community one lived in, and on whether one could be a worthwhile contributor to it. Therefore the pressure to herd children through to career-determining exams would not exist, and there would be much less worry about the pace at which they mastered things.

Many people would develop the same levels of expertise we have in society today, because we would obviously continue to need doctors, scientists, engineers etc. However all this is merely training, not Education, and the distinction would be clearly kept in mind.

There would still be courses to train technicians and professionals, and these could be much the same as they are now, via set institutions, professional teachers, and final exams to certify competence. However any neighborhood would have an abundance of teaching talent in its ordinary citizens, including children who can help younger children. The local Education committee would list all this talent and enable it to be drawn upon. Thus we would probably need only a few paid teachers and organizers.

The Education Committee would have the task of monitoring the progress of all children thoroughly, making sure that eventually everyone had experienced all important areas of the “curriculum”.

It is not obvious that we would need special school buildings. In general groups might meet for “classes” in the neighborhood centre, although most learning would take place throughout the neighborhood, especially when children were helping adults grow, make and repair things and at festivals and meetings.

Because The Simpler Way is intellectually stimulating, and gives people much time for thinking, reading, discussing and learning, it is likely that much more Education would take place than occurs today. There would probably be more literary clubs, drama clubs, creative writing, history and astronomy groups than there are now. People would go from practical activities to text books to delve into the background theory. Education Committees would be assisted by State authorities and Universities to think about what themes are the most appropriate to acquaint children and adults with in their ceaseless quest to become wiser, more humane, more worthwhile etc. beings. Only in a post-consumer society could Education flourish. Its goals could then include all those things implicated in the notion of ideal human mental, emotional, personal, social, physical and spiritual development.

All would be aware that in the long run the viability and quality of a society depend on how thoughtful, sensible, compassionate and responsible its ordinary citizens are. Security derives from these qualities, not in the size of the GDP, or military power, or technical wizardry or heroic leaders.


Some final, crucial points.
 

It must be emphasized that if the limits to growth analysis is basically correct, then we have no choice but to work for the sort of alternative society outlined above. In rich and poor countries a sustainable and just society can only be conceived in terms of simpler lifestyles mostly in highly self-sufficient and participatory settlements, and zero growth or steady state economic systems.

Secondly, it would be very easy to establish and run The Simpler Way! It does not involve complicated technology. It does not require solutions to difficult technical problems, like how to get a fusion reactor to work lt does not require vast bureaucracies or huge sums of capital. We could transform existing suburbs in a few months, using mostly hand tools.

Of course we couldn’t do it unless people in general want to do it. But if they did, we could almost instantly defuse global problems and liberate human kind.

The Simpler Way is about reorganizing to harness abundant existing resources, now largely wasted. In your neighborhood there are huge resources of labor, skill, advice, humor, technical capacity, care, community…but they are idle. People who could be helping each other, making community facilities, dropping in on old people, etc., are sitting in their isolated boxes watching TV.


Section 3: THE TRANSITION


When we are clear about the basic problems in our society and the essential nature of the required alternative, a number of implications for the transition process are inescapably given.

1. The transition cannot be imposed by a state or an authoritarian or revolutionary group. The new local societies can only be made to work by the willing effort of local people who understand why The Simpler Way is necessary and who want to live that way. In any case only they know the local conditions and social situation and only they can develop the networks, trust, cooperative climate etc.. All the producing and maintaining and administering will have to be carried out by them. In any case there will not be enough resources for centralized authorities to do these things. The transition therefore has to focus on helping ordinary people to move towards willing acceptance of the new ways, and towards enthusiastic participation in the long process of learning how best to organize in their area..

2. There is therefore no value in working to take state power, either within the parliamentary system, or by revolution. Even if the Prime Minister and cabinet suddenly came to hold all the right ideas and values, they could not make the required changes -- they would be instantly tossed out of office if they tried. The changes can only come from the bottom, via slow, profound change in ideas, understandings, and values, and these cannot occur except through a lengthy process of learning the new values in the places where people live.

3. We do not have to get rid of consumer-capitalist society before we can begin to build the new way. Fighting directly against the system is not a good idea at this point in time. It has never been stronger than it is today. The way to beat it is to ignore it to death, i.e., to start building its replacement and persuading people to come across.

4. The main target, the main problem group, the basic block to progress, is not the corporations or the capitalist class. They have their power because people in general grant it to them. The problem group, the key to transition, is people in general. If they came to see The Simpler Way as preferable, consumer-capitalist society would immediately collapse. The battle is therefore one of ideology. Our best chance of winning it in the long run is to start building the alternatives to which people can move as the problems the present society is creating become more intolerable. If a petroleum shortage occurs it will concentrate minds wonderfully. But the window of opportunity will be brief and risky. If things deteriorate too far there will be too much chaos for sense to prevail.

5. The top priority for anyone concerned about the fate of the planet must therefore be to contribute to the building of elements of The Simpler Way, here and now. In the last 20 years a "Global Alternative Society Movement" has developed, in which many people all around the world have begun to build, live in and experiment with new settlements which enable simpler ways. (Note 14)The fate of the planet depends on whether the Movement is able to develop sufficient impressive examples of The Simpler Way in coming years.
 

An Outline of a Practical Strategy.

Following are the steps we can start taking immediately, within our suburbs and especially in dying country towns.

Form a Community Development Collective.

A group must come together and form itself into a Community Development Collective (hereafter referred to as CDC.) Ideally the CDC will eventually develop into a mechanism for the participatory self-government of the town or suburb, but at first it might involve only a handful of individuals seeking to do some humble things.

Set up a community garden and workshop. The CDC's initial goal is to identify and organize some of the locality’s unused productive resources of skill, energy, experience and good will so that people can start to produce for themselves some of the basic items they need.