FW: Is Thorium the new Uranium?
Andy Williamson
(Gav runs the ‘Avoiding Mass Extinction Engine: http://www.amee.com/ )
A link to an interesting article, about the benefits of Thorium over Uranium as a nuclear fuel. A very quick summary (and I may have missed something important)
- much more abundant in nature
- produces hardly any waste
- the waste it does produce becomes safe in 100s of years, not 100,000s
However, of the two, Uranium is the only one that can produce weapon-grade plutonium, so guess which one was chosen by the US government to concentrate on?
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
Andy
PS – Happy New Year to everyone here – a new arrival to look after means I’ve not been around much lately.
Perhaps 2010 will be the year that people really do start to ‘get it’. Perhaps that will lead to the world becoming a more friendly, cooperative and less greedy place. Perhaps the Wizard of Oz will give us all whatever we lack...
Karen Jemmett
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
Andy Williamson
This is not a website, it’s an email list (or group). Web access is completely unnecessary (unless that’s the only way you get at email). Email lists have been around for much longer than the web.
To start a new topic, just start a new email, give it a subject, and send it to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
To do that you need to be a member – to join, send a blank email to monbiot-disc...@googlegroups.com [though this doesn’t seem to be working right now for one of the Google groups I run]
It used to be regarded as bad manners to start a new topic (or thread) by just replying to another and changing the subject. Or, to change the subject line, while still continuing the same discussion. This is because some email programmes use ‘threading’ to link mails which are replies to each other, regardless of what’s actually in the subject line.
It’s also regarded as good manners, if the subject under discussion no longer matches the subject line, to modify the subject line as I’ve done with this one.
These last two things are important for people who aren’t reading every mail as it comes in. If there’s a busy discussion, sometimes it’s good to be able to go to the first post and read from there. The easiest way to do this is to search for mails with ‘whatever it is’ in the subject line. If the subject lines change, then it’s hard to find the start of the thread.
Anyway, that’s enough email list etiquette – Google will give you all this and more, I’m sure.
Anyway – thanks for the link to GM’s thing about the complete artificiality of GDP. It’s high time all the newspapers and other media that comment on economics had a go at explaining exactly why it’s treated as a law of nature that ‘GDP’ must always grow. I’m convinced that it’s not at all – it’s only necessary to keep banks in business (at least according to their current business model) - but that’s another topic...
Andy
On 04/01/2010 22:48, "Karen Jemmett" <kaj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hey, does anyone know how to create a new topic on Monbiot? I can't see anything obvious in the tool bar. I never did get the hang of this new site.
Meanwhile, have you seen GM's latest article on GDP? Here's a quick snippet:
"In a new paper published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society> , Sir Partha Dasgupta <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/28/economics-environment-gdp-climate-change> makes the point that the problem with gross domestic product is the gross bit. There are no deductions involved: all economic activity is accounted as if it were of positive value. Social harm is added to, not subtracted from, social good. A train crash which generates £1bn worth of track repairs, medical bills and funeral costs is deemed by this measure to be as beneficial as an uninterrupted service which generates £1bn in ticket sales."
Way to go...
Karen
2010/1/4 Andy Williamson <andywill...@gmail.com>
From Twitter: http://twitter.com/agentGav/status/7367256466
(Gav runs the ‘Avoiding Mass Extinction Engine: http://www.amee.com/ )
A link to an interesting article, about the benefits of Thorium over Uranium as a nuclear fuel. A very quick summary (and I may have missed something important)
- much more abundant in nature
- produces hardly any waste
- the waste it does produce becomes safe in 100s of years, not 100,000s
However, of the two, Uranium is the only one that can produce weapon-grade plutonium, so guess which one was chosen by the US government to concentrate on?
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
Andy
PS – Happy New Year to everyone here – a new arrival to look after means I’ve not been around much lately.
Perhaps 2010 will be the year that people really do start to ‘get it’. Perhaps that will lead to the world becoming a more friendly, cooperative and less greedy place. Perhaps the Wizard of Oz will give us all whatever we lack...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com <mailto:monbiot-discuss%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
TIMC...@aol.com
it’s treated as a law of nature that ‘GDP’ must always grow. I’m convinced that it’s not at all
Hi Andy,not essential at all there are many descriptions of steady state economic models.i got sick of all the lectures banging on about continual expansion and covered a bit of steady state years ago.Coming from engineering / maths i was aware of the impossibility of eternal expansion.Of course what we really need now is 100 years of dramatic contraction.CheersTim
John Russell
Are people like us the only ones that realise the 'endless growth' scenario must follow what I call the 'balloon model': steady expansion followed by a sudden and catastrophic failure.
We sure are stretching that rubber, folks.
Best wishes,
JR
TIMC...@aol.com wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2599 - Release Date: 01/04/10 08:24:00
Karen Jemmett
Karen Jemmett
Joan Sutherland
Joan
------
Joan Sutherland
Allegra Strings
"classical music for classy events since 1992"
man...@allegrastrings.com
www.allegrastrings.com
Kingston, ON
613.329.1763
Richard Kay
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:12:50AM +0000, John Russell wrote:
> What I could never get my head round was that those wanting to take
> economics at school/university needed to be good at maths. Why then do
> they simply ignore the fundamental principle you mention, Tim; that
> nothing can expand indefinitely (well: maybe apart from the human
> capacity for self-delusion)?
To an extent continually increasing GDP is about changes in
perception of value. GM is right that as a measure of goods
plus bads, GDP is close to useless, though I would add
the qualification: somewhat useless in an already affluent society.
Perhaps a better measure would be goods minus bads or even the goods/bads
ratio. It is also inevitable that as people get smarter
GDP will grow, and this doesn't need to mean any increase
in non-sustainable resource use or reduction in renewable
capacity. For example, we can reasonably account sustainably
produced electricity as more valuable than the other sort
in our GDP calculations once the costs of the bads associated
with the other sort are no longer externalised.
Some GNP change is entirely unrelated to resource use, for
example a computer that can do 10 x as much for 1/10th the
material and electricity consumption adds more to GNP
despite consuming less.
> I find it particularly mind numbing when
> they apply the same logic to population, and rubbish Malthus. The irony
> is that the longer we go beyond Malthus's predictions, the more they
> think his theory is proved incorrect.
And rightly so IMHO.
> They seem to think that the fact humans have always found ways
> to cope with increasing population means we will always find
> ways to cope.
I don't think anyone is arguing that population can grow
infinitely. Social changes leading to the possibility of
population growth has been less linear and more stepwise.
The human carrying capacity of the planet increased greatly as
a consequence of agriculture replacing hunter gathering as
the primary means of obtaining food. But this resulted in
a fairly rapid increase followed by a gently increasing
plateau as the main increase resulting from the revolutionary
improvement occurred rapidly with the subsequent evolutionary
improvements in agricultural technique occurring much more gradually.
Something similar occurred with industrialisation. Societies
which fully industrialised a couple of generations ago are
no longer growing in population. Within another couple of
generations all societies on the planet will have industrialised
and will presumably find a population equilibrium based upon the
smaller number of children more educated women now want
to have.
Industrialisation also reduced infant mortality while
mechanisation of agriculture resulted in a similar increase
in agricultural productivity to match increasing human
population as the introduction of agriculture did over hunter-gathering.
But unlike earlier changes affecting population which were
limited by maximum food production and starvation, industrialisation
is evidently a change likely to have factors limiting
population growth other than maximum food production capacity and
starvation.
So in the sense that women in developed countries do not want to have
enough children to maintain current populations which in no sense
are at risk of starvation, Malthus is demonstrably wrong. Obesity
is a much greater problem in the more advanced societies than hunger.
At the time Malthus made his observations of undeveloped societies
he was right that starvation limited population growth.
Cheers,
Richard.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2599 - Release Date: 01/04/10 08:24:00
> >
> >
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.431 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2599 - Release Date: 01/04/10 08:24:00
>
John Russell
In support of that view I offer: http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/news/jeffrey-sachs-lecture Quote: " Malthus has since this time been widely reviled within economics. However, Sachs said, it could be argued we have not really found a way to solve the Malthusian problem. We have thus far only managed to feed the globe’s growing population through mining of raw materials and sources of energy. We all know this cannot continue forever – some sources will run out and others will damage the earth beyond repair."
I also offer the words of our own GM: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/01/29/population-bombs/ Quote: "In 2005, the UN estimated that the world’s population will more or less stabilise in 2200 at 10 billion(5)." " ...if we accept the UN’s projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50% harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. "
I know you believe that humans will be able to find a replacement for fossil energy sources but as yet there is nothing viable at the necessary level, and to just have faith that 'something will turn up' is a big ask for someone like me. All the current development of 'sustainable alternatives' has shown that 1) they will be very expensive to implement at the scale required, and 2) to put them in place globally will require a large percentage of the remaining available fossil energy. Consequently, at best, I think we're taking a huge risk. Even if we manage to replace the concentrated cheap energy of oil, the human biomass as it exists today is overwhelming not only all the other wild species on this planet, but the evidence keeps piling up that we're destroying the very environment we need to support our numbers. How much more do you need?
To sum up; the natural population limitation you put so much faith in only kicks in globally at a level which is utterly unsustainable.
Best wishes,
JR
Richard Kay wrote:
TM Printing Ltd
> On 6 Ean 2010, at 11:59, John Russell wrote:
>
Once again, I find myself agreeing with John.
David
Richard Kay
>I also offer the words of our own GM:
>http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/01/29/population-bombs/ Quote:/ "In
>2005, the UN estimated that the world's population will more or less
>stabilise in 2200 at 10 billion(5)." " ...if we accept the UN's
>projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop.
>This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50%
>harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources.
John,
The UN population projection seems reasonable, and I would agree
that 10 billion people will not be able to live at the lifestyle
currently enjoyed or suffered by the richest within the developed
world, depending upon you point of view concerning our relative
affluence or the effluence of misery resulting from toxic culturally-
induced pressures.
Living a suburban lifestyle and spending hundreds of hours each
year in aircraft, and being able to drive children to school in a 4x4
- who would be better off walking if the streets were safe -
are not worthwhile aspirations. Being able to have enough
food on the table, and for children be able to go to school,
and having access to clean water and some general level of
medical care when needed are very worthwhile aspirations,
and in my view these are fully capable of being met by the
carrying capacity of the planet given appropriate technical,
caring and policy input based upon what we already know quite well
how to do.
For a good example of what can be done once people in the worst of
circumstances learn how to read, compared to the situation they
are in prior to this, you might want to find out how William Kamkwamba
transformed his farm, community, life and prospects using knowledge
which he obtained from books once he taught himself to read them:
http://www.ted.com/talks/william_kamkwamba_how_i_harnessed_the_wind.html
For a Malawian farmer in desperate circumstances a limited amount of
knowledge resulting in a small supply of sustainably generated
electricity, compared to our normal standards of knowledge and electricity
can make a very great difference, and this is true also for all
others in desperate povery who are threatened by hunger.
For a technlogical insider, as one who has practiced engineering in
various roles as part of a large team of engineers at
the infrastructure level, and who now teaches engineering for my
living, the key constraint upon genuine progress is always knowledge and
never resources. No-one has demonstrated this simple fact any better
than William Kamkwambe, though a more worldly view which would place
material resources above knowledge in the heirarchy of aspirations
seems doomed in ignorance to reduce our resources to less than
our potential.
Best wishes,
Richard.
Joan Sutherland
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
--
Joan
------
Joan Sutherland
73 Crown St.
Thunder Bay
John Russell
I think we've had this discussion before and -- given your techno-optimism -- I doubt whether we'll progress much further again: but that's no reason for me to roll over!
Yes, I've seen William Kamkwamba's story before, and I agree that it's inspiring.
The UN's projection of the world's population stabilising at 10 billion is based on an assumed standard of living where everyone is sufficiently educated, sufficiently fed and sufficiently comfortable not to feel the need to produce more children. We're both in complete agreement that this 'sufficiency' will fall short of the sort of lifestyle to which many people in developed countries today aspire; with the cars, foreign holidays, and all the other trappings that make people feel 'comfortable'. However, I would suggest that a primary reason for the population increase tailing off in developed countries is the fact that people realise that to have more than one or two children will in fact hinder their chances of their achieving their aspirations. That's why in developed countries the biggest families are found at the poor end of society -- where they've given up on their aspirations -- and at the rich end where nannies and private schools can ensure a large family does not cramp their style (let's call it the 'Nicola Horlick syndrome'). So in other words it's not 'being comfortable' that limits population, it's feeling that more children will hinder rather than help individuals achieve the state of feeling comfortable: whatever that level might be. So what I'm saying is that I don't believe anyone can say the UN's '10 billion' is set in stone.
The next question is therefore whether it's possible for us to engineer an equitable society globally, where everybody feels that more children is not the answer to achieving a comfortable existence; and whether it's feasible for that society to achieve a sustainable existence on a planet teeming with 10 billion people. Maybe you're right, maybe it is theoretically feasible, but given we're falling so short of achieving a sustainable existence for the 7 billion currently alive, aren't we rather pushing our luck to think we can get to the population levels you seem to think is possible, without some sort of catastrophic failure befalling us en route? Take a look at what we're doing to our planet right now; the acidifying oceans; the degradation and depletion of soils; the melting ice; the rising sea level; the mass extinction of species; the pollution; the over-fishing; the deforestation; the failing water supplies; the decapitation of mountains; the territorial grabbing of the world's remaining resources: can you deny that it's an unending litany of human failure.
In support of my argument I look to no less an ally than Charles Darwin, who in describing the 'struggle for existence' on our planet suggested that an increase in one species required an equivalent decrease in an other; "In looking at Nature, it is most necessary to keep the foregoing considerations in mind - never to forget that every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers; that each lives by a struggle at some period of its life; that heavy destruction inevitably falls either on the young or old, during each generation or at recurrent intervals. Lighten any check, mitigate the destruction ever so little, and the number of the species will almost instantaneously increase to any amount. The face of Nature may be compared to a yielding surface, with ten thousand sharp wedges packed close together and driven inwards by incessant blows, sometimes one wedge being struck, and then another with greater force."
The great Isaac Asimov was in agreement with the concept of a fixed world biomass, "Every time the human population increases in mass by one ton, the mass of non-human animal life must decrease by one ton to make room.".
Don't get me wrong, Richard, it's not that there are no amazing stories of humans turning things round, discovering new and better ways of doing things, making new discoveries, developing new technologies; it's just that these incremental improvements -- and even a few significant developments -- are completely swamped by the damage we're doing to our one and only beautiful planet. Another 3 billion people won't help in the almost impossible struggle for humans to achieve a sustainable existence that leaves room for all the other species that now depend on us for their very survival.
Best wishes,
JR
Richard Kay wrote:
For a Malawian farmer in desperate circumstances a limited amount of knowledge resulting in a small supply of sustainably generated electricity, compared to our normal standards of knowledge and electricity can make a very great difference, and this is true also for all others in desperate povery who are threatened by hunger. For a technlogical insider, as one who has practiced engineering in various roles as part of a large team of engineers at the infrastructure level, and who now teaches engineering for my living, the key constraint upon genuine progress is always knowledge and never resources. No-one has demonstrated this simple fact any better than William Kamkwambe, though a more worldly view which would place material resources above knowledge in the heirarchy of aspirations seems doomed in ignorance to reduce our resources to less than our potential. Best wishes, Richard.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.129/2606 - Release Date: 01/07/10 19:35:00
Richard Kay
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 11:40:16AM -0500, Joan Sutherland wrote:
> Thanks for the story and I agree with all your comments but the final
> conclusion that knowledge gained is the solution to 'our situation'. Science
> unknown today (for whatever reason) and that we learn tomorrow, will save
> the day. In some individual situations of course I agree, where the
> individual actually has the power to act on his/her own behalf. But what we
> face on a large scale, inspite of our 'democratic slogans' is the removal of
> power from the adult person to the political and corporate 'group'. We
> already know what we should and can do, but we are subject to 'global
> groups' who are possessed of different agendas. Where is the political
> movement, as Monbiot has asked in his latest brilliant essay(I haven't yet
> seen any replies to it?) based perhaps on a single Idea, fundamental enough
> to start the necessary world-scale revolution?
In a sense this political movement is all around us, present in those
we know and love, whenever an individual strives to change local
circumstances or develop ideas for the better, and begins to work with others
in the furtherance of these actions and ideas. An example is my son who
was arrested recently concerning a protest at a coal burning power station
at which he chained himself to a coal conveyer and stopped this
for several hours.
But I think you are right that the corporate structure of society is
fundamentally broken, and the political action of the radical is negated
by the dilemma between the powerlessness that comes from working
at the small, local and human level, or of acting more corporately in
pursuit of effectiveness but ending by denying the beauty of the small.
Until recently, the single idea of this movement was best summed up by
Schumacher in the title of his book: "Small is beautiful".
But a more tangible proposal that derives from this which could potentially
tie these many small initiatives together into something collectively
more effective than these could ever become on their own is as follows:
Those creative of value, of care and of kindness do not need
the type of money created through the balance sheets of the
corporate bankers and accepted by discredited governments in payment
of taxes, for our own community sustainable economic purposes, once
it is accepted that we can create our own money out of our own acknowledgement
of good done by others for us, which we will redeem and recreate out
of our willingness and actions to do similar in exchange for others.
The fact that we can do so is now undeniable, though up to date too
few have done this for the concept of community currency to have
been more than yet another kind of isolated and fractious local
initiative.
In one sense this idea has the potential of a revolution, in another
sense it will work as reform through the existing political system
in order to free the new community economy of demands to be taxed
by and kept in subservience by the old, to the extent the new community
economy will replace the tax revenues needed for what we value
which the old economy is becoming increasingly inept at providing.
Anyway, I need to get back to debugging and testing my recent
improvements of the web application used as the core communications
and accounting mechanism by my local LETS group's membership. This
software is likely to be adopted soon somewhat more effectively
by another local community group which exists for a different purpose.
Best wishes,
Richard.
> Joan
timc...@aol.com
John Russell
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2609 - Release Date: 01/09/10 07:35:00
Andy Williamson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/
Someone had asked a question about how GDP can be expected to go on increasing ad infinitum in a finite system.
The expert who they brought in to talk about this told a powerful story, I’m sure familiar to many here, which goes something like:
In every system which increases its size by a small percentage in a fixed time, there is a ‘doubling time’. For example, something which increases by 4.8% every year doubles in size in just under 15 years. Say you have one bacteria cell in a bottle, which, through cell division doubles every minute, and in doing so takes one hour to fill the bottle. If it starts at 11am, by 11:58 the bottle will only be a quarter full – apparently plenty of space left. By 11.59 it’ll be half full, and by 12 completely full. If the bacteria were foresighted, and around 11.55 sent an expedition to find more bottles, and they came back with 3 new ones – 4 times as much space as they had ever had – by 12:01, the first of the new bottles will be full, and by 12:02 all four will be full.
In looking this up, I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time – where I see that Jimmy Carter cottoned on to this back in the 70s.
Andy
On 09/01/2010 12:36, "John Russell" <j...@johnrussell.tv> wrote:
John Russell
My problem with this is just that the nearest planet so far discovered outside our solar system is ten light years away ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061009_nearest_exoplanet.html ), so assuming we can find a way to achieve near-light-speed travel, and given that we can overcome the problems inherent in tearing it out of its current orbit and pulling it back here, that means it will be at least, oh, say... 50 years before it's in a position to provide a global living room extension. Will we need planning permission from the Galactic Council? In the meantime...
Oh, I forgot; it will also need to be able to support life and, of course, if it's able to support life then there's a possibility there will already be life on it. Still never mind, we're pretty adept at destroying other forms of life, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Well what are we waiting for? Get off your arses! Let's get cracking!
Best wishes,
JR
Andy Williamson wrote:
Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.131/2608 - Release Date: 01/08/10 19:35:00
Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand
----- Original Message -----From: John RussellSent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 3:41 AMSubject: Re: [Monbiot] GDP
TIMC...@aol.com
You mean like this, Tim ...
Andy Williamson
I obviously didn’t manage to put it across :-)
Andy
On 09/01/2010 14:41, "John Russell" <j...@johnrussell.tv> wrote:
Great, Andy, so we just need to send out an expedition to find more Earths and bring 'em back! Any volunteers?
My problem with this is just that the nearest planet so far discovered outside our solar system is ten light years away ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061009_nearest_exoplanet.html ), so assuming we can find a way to achieve near-light-speed travel, and given that we can overcome the problems inherent in tearing it out of its current orbit and pulling it back here, that means it will be at least, oh, say... 50 years before it's in a position to provide a global living room extension. Will we need planning permission from the Galactic Council? In the meantime...
Oh, I forgot; it will also need to be able to support life and, of course, if it's able to support life then there's a possibility there will already be life on it. Still never mind, we're pretty adept at destroying other forms of life, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Well what are we waiting for? Get off your arses! Let's get cracking!
Best wishes,
JR
Andy Williamson wrote:
Re: [Monbiot] GDP This high impact pic seems to convey a similar message about our fragile situation as a story told on Radio 4’s ‘More or Less’ yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/
John Russell
Best wishes,
John
Andy Williamson wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.132/2611 - Release Date: 01/10/10 07:35:00
Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand
----- Original Message -----From: Andy WilliamsonTo: Monbiot-google
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 4:31 AMSubject: Re: [Monbiot] GDP
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.132/2610 - Release Date: 01/09/10 19:35:00
Tanya Jones
From: Lila Smith
naturecreekfarm
One way it has been put when atmospheric pressure was discovered was
this, "We live at the bottom of an ocean of air."
If we lived at the bottom of the actual ocean, and we saw what was
being dumped on our heads, we would do something about it.
We drive by smokestacks throwing crap up in the air and don't think
that it is coming right back down on top of us. It is invisible, so
must be safe.
Humans are a funny bunch.
Dan C.
Richard Kay
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 01:41:15PM +0000, Andy Williamson wrote:
>
> Someone had asked a question about how GDP can be expected to go on
> increasing ad infinitum in a finite system.
>
> The expert who they brought in to talk about this told a powerful story, I�m
> sure familiar to many here, which goes something like:
>
> In every system which increases its size by a small percentage in a fixed
> time, there is a �doubling time�. For example, something which increases by
> 4.8% every year doubles in size in just under 15 years. Say you have one
> bacteria cell in a bottle, which, through cell division doubles every
> minute, and in doing so takes one hour to fill the bottle. If it starts at
> 11am, by 11:58 the bottle will only be a quarter full � apparently plenty of
> space left. By 11.59 it�ll be half full, and by 12 completely full. If the
> bacteria were foresighted, and around 11.55 sent an expedition to find more
> bottles, and they came back with 3 new ones � 4 times as much space as they
> had ever had � by 12:01, the first of the new bottles will be full, and by
> 12:02 all four will be full.
>
> In looking this up, I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time �
> where I see that Jimmy Carter cottoned on to this back in the 70s.
What you are saying that I'm hearing is that you don't understand
the idea of economic growth at all. This could be the case. But
if we want to rubbish an idea because we don't think it's useful
it helps if we understand it in the first place, because if we
don't then we're not rubbishing the idea at all.
I fully agree that from a mathematical point of view, if we
are equating value to something measurable in atoms, that after
a given number of doublings based upon a given starting point
defined as a given number of atoms, that we will have more mass than
the entire universe. Also if we are equating value to something
measurable in information theory, in terms of bits, that after
a given number of doublings, that if a given number of bits requires
a finite number of atoms to store them, that we will run out
of the mass of the universe at approximately the same time as if we
were counting in atoms.
The conceptual problem you seem to have is that subjectively
measured value is neither of these things, being equatable to
neither bits nor atoms. Because the value measured by GDP
is entirely subjective it can indeed go on growing for ever.
So we need to find other reasons why GDP is not a useful
measure, if we consider this to be the case.
Other reasons might well include that economic value contributing
towards GDP is entirely subjective. There are also questions
concerning how much GDP we need and want. If we have enough then why
should we need or want any more than this ? Also what proportion of
GDP is goods and what proportion is bads ? And to what extent
does increasing GDP over a certain amount result in any more
happiness ? Or does increasing GDP beyond a certain amount
actually reduce happiness ?
These other reasons for limiting GDP and for questioning the concept
of GDP as a useful measure are somewhat more compelling in my view, than
an argument holed below the water because it attempts to equate
something entirely subjective (economic growth based on subjective
valuations shifting over time) to something inherently finite, such
as bits or atoms.
Best wishes,
Richard.
>
> Andy
>
>
> On 09/01/2010 12:36, "John Russell" <j...@johnrussell.tv> wrote:
>
> > You mean like this, Tim ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Rather than this...
> >
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > JR
> >
> >
> > timc...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> One thing that strikes me is how people forget the size of the atmosphere.
> >>
> >> It first hit me when i was doing a weekly commute; i was doing a three hour
> >> drive which would have taken me past the space station if done upwards.
> >>
> >> Also i've only been up to 5300 metres unprotected but doing anything at that
> >> altitude makes you realise how soon the air runs out.
> >>
> >> We are left with so little mass of atmosphere to dilute the vast industrial
> >> levels of pollution we produce.
> >>
> >> It's like a thin protective onion skin which we damage at our peril.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In a message dated 08/01/2010 17:20:08 GMT Standard Time, j...@johnrussell.tv
> >> writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> and even a few significant developments -- are completely swamped by the
> >>> damage we're doing to our one and only beautiful planet
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> -- <br />
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.<br />
>
> To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.<br />
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.<br />
>
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.<br />
>
naturecreekfarm
If you have some floating in a magnetic ashtray on your desk, wouldn't
you HAVE to call it "obtainium" then?
"Unobtainium" is an old engineering technician's joke to ridicule
rocket scientists who design things that can never work unless built
with unobtainium.
Yes, I saw Avatar. In 3D...then made the kids see it, too.
It's like Pocahantas with more explosions and cool effects.
My sarcastic comment is this: Why do scientists always think that if
they get enough data, the corporate/religious/culturally backward/
politicians/etc. will suddenly care that they are killing something? I
mean, Geezus, those people LIVE to kill shit; killing shit is what
they do for FUN. Telling them it is impossible just gives them a
hardon for more killing and gives them an excuse to stamp out medals!!
Those same people claim to not understand the suicide bombers that are
the bane of their existence. Ha! They SUPPORT each other!!
"Move along. These are not the trees you were looking for." would be
more effective.
"Move along. These Afghanistan poppy farmers are not the terrorists
you are looking for."
But they will be if you kill their goats.
"Hey! Let's go target practice on some goats today!!"
Dan C.
On Jan 10, 12:59 pm, "Lila Smith" <lil...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Re: [Monbiot] GDPdid you see Avatar Andy.
naturecreekfarm
the reply being sent.
Weird.
Daniel Boardman
others here make many valid points made about the need for new
measures of progress and the dangers of endless expansion, but in
order to combat a thing like GDP, one should understand a bit more
about how it is such an effective instrument.
Firstly, GDP is a nominal measure, meaning that the significance of
the number value is not absolute and changes over time. What's more,
these changes can go in either direction, at any speed, is difficult
to measure, and is misreported by design. But that does not mean that
the numbers don't matter. They can tell us a lot about the economy
(i.e. our collective insanity) year over year.
How so? Let's think about the yearly growth figures. A low positive
number is the baseline, where quality and quantity of consumption
stays constant. Add some population growth, and we need more GDP
growth for the same per capita effect. But why a positive number and
not zero? Since our money is based on renewing interest-bearing debts,
zero growth means less and less money in the hands of the borrower
(society) until the game of musical chairs is over. Nominal growth
makes people feel better by allowing them to keep more or less the
same amount of money in active circulation. But it's more than
psychological appeasement - it's the result of our own desperation to
stay in the game. Negative growth/recession/depression represents a
quick reset of the game or possibly a dramatic ending.
Under past money systems, the value of money had a tendency to shift
dramatically during times of social upheaval. Commissioning soldiers,
factories or new imports required cash and the uptick in demand put a
strain on all prices. Simply put, if the rulers wanted more toys, they
had to deal with hungry peasants who want fewer taxes and manure
subsidies. In time, the merchant class would better anticipate the
money market and greatly increase the immediacy of this effect. So
whenever a totally new source of wealth (gold, etc.) was discovered
or even suspected, the incentive to capture the supply for one's own
moneys was insurmountable. Only by expanding the money supply in this
way could new things be bought at the strategic level without sending
price signals throughout society.
Today's money system is more flexible. The supply grows with every new
debt and shrinks with every repayment. Our gold rush is in the debt-
born dreams and ambitions of every person and non-person. GDP is not a
measure of the money supply, but it is measured by the money supply.
Think of it as the number of Dollars, Pounds or Francs times the
average number of hands that the money touches in a year (aka money
velocity). Both of these numbers has a natural tendency to go down, so
do-nothing policies are equivalent to dismantling the current global
economy. The money supply goes down because interest on debts
encourages small competitive players to pay back loans quickly and
borrow less. That interest and other funds channeled via politics and
corporate activities also tends to end up in the hands of the super-
rich; which is why money velocity tends to drop as well. A good
example of this would be Bill Gates, who has accumulated so much
interest-bearing wealth that it has become a near impossibility to
spend it all wisely.
The biggest threat to the status quo is the system itself, which as I
have tried to explain, is self-destructive. That is why financial
innovation is so important to keeping everything else static. Money
has never had a constant value, but by combining centuries of banking
tricks and new technologies, we fool ourselves into treating it as if
it were so. A major flaw in the whole illusion is its need for eternal
growth. We can see past the lies, but we must understand just how
fundamental they are to anyone who benefits from finance as we now
know it.
edwar...@aol.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
naturecreekfarm
> A good argument for effective estate taxes to re-distribute money from the
> rich from time to time.
---Or an argument to get rid of all income taxes, the loopholes and
incentives associated with them(including the patent systems), and put
the cost of ALL government services on a sales tax: at the point where
people make decisions about their consumption: the checkout line.
The rich get richer because we give them our wealth and labors in
exchange for 'security' and trinkets.
Instead of re-distribution, there should be negative feedback at the
source of demand.
The GDP, as very elaborately stated previously, is a side-effect of
the activities which people undertake. The critical question is "What
are people FOR?"
If you don't first ask what people are useful for to the planet, then
how can we justify letting them consume anything they want? Where's
the return to the future for the activity they undertake NOW?
Capitalists want us to believe that money IS the return on investment
that everyone desires, and thinking that clean air, clean water,
chemical energy stored in the ground, and health are valuable is
blasphemy when those things can be spent to create money instead.
As long as the GDP is measured monetarily(imagined value references),
then Capitalism (worship of money) will reign.
Real value is related to Future Usefulness (FU..lol), such as a
healthy, educated child, a clean river, oil that is still in the
ground and bioactive organic soils. Monetary value is in the past, as
it is resources which are in the process of being converted to waste
products ('service economy', driving to work, debt to build a house in
the suburbs).
>
> n a message dated 12/01/2010 19:03:58 GMT Standard Time,
>
>
TM Printing Ltd
On 12 Ean 2010, at 22:02, naturecreekfarm wrote:
> On Jan 12, 1:33 pm, edwardtk...@aol.com wrote:
>> A good argument for effective estate taxes to re-distribute money
>> from the
>> rich from time to time.
>
> ---Or an argument to get rid of all income taxes, the loopholes and
> incentives associated with them(including the patent systems), and put
> the cost of ALL government services on a sales tax: at the point where
> people make decisions about their consumption: the checkout line.
The two together (ie a land value tax and shift of the rest of taxes
to sales), now there would be a paradigm shift! Combined, of course,
with a total legalisation (and similar legislation and taxing as
tobacco and alcohol) of drugs. Not that I've ever 'done' or will ever
'do' drugs or even approve in any way.
David
John Russell
While I agree in some circumstances it could be useful, it could also be a very blunt instrument. There is much land about that brings in virtually no income for its owner but has a high value for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and amenity (I know about this because I own a few acres). If they start demanding annual taxes on land, then the only people who could afford to own it would be those wanting to exploit it to maximise income from it. The unforeseen consequences of this could be the destruction of many areas of land of great value for wildlife.
Best wishes,
JR
TM Printing Ltd wrote:
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.137/2617 - Release Date: 01/12/10 19:35:00
TM Printing Ltd
You need to think very carefully about 'land value' tax and how it might work.
timc...@aol.com
These, amongst other things, have informed much of what I think and believe about land value tax
Hi David,tends to get us all worrying here.Being a small business using land we're taxed very heavily as it is. We're also very aware that city money has pushed land values way above any realistic agric value.Under the present system it is also exorbitantly expensive to sell up and get out.The issue appears to be more emotive in Ireland for some reason.Sorry to say i didn't have time to read the whole article as doing year end and VAT return so Gordon can find some more tax to pass on to his banker mates!CheersTim
John Russell
"Some landowners may never wish to develop their lands for personal, ecological or historical reasons. In that case, if the land is not critical to the coherent and sustainable development of the area, the zoning levy could be foregone. But the owner must also forego all future development rights in favour of the local authority or other local trust."It's badly written: to be unambiguous it should say...
"For personal, ecological or historical reasons, some landowners may never wish to develop their lands In that case, if the land is not critical to the coherent and sustainable development of the area, the zoning levy could be foregone. But the owner must also forego all future development rights in favour of the local authority or other local trust."My only remaining issue is the assumption that the governmental body administering the system has a benevolent and clearly thought out agenda. History tells us that in these circumstances, those in authority become corrupted by their power and central planning is often heavy footed, not very imaginative and full of its own importance; hence the tendency for 'empire-building' that goes on in nationalised bodies.
I totally agree with the sentiment that individuals should not become rich by 'getting lucky' through their land becoming reclassified for development.
Best wishes,
John
TM Printing Ltd wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.148/2629 - Release Date: 01/17/10 19:35:00
TM Printing Ltd
My only remaining issue is the assumption that the governmental body administering the system has a benevolent and clearly thought out agenda.
john fitzgerald
Subject: Re: [Monbiot] Re: GDP
------------------------
From: John Russell <j...@johnrussell.tv>
Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM
To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.148/2629 - Release Date: 01/17/10 19:35:00
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
From: TM Printing Ltd <grap...@tmprinting.ie>
Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:53 PM
To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
TM Printing Ltd
Being a small business using land we're taxed very heavily as it is
timc...@aol.com
Being a small business using land we're taxed very heavily as it is
My immediate thought is, "What's he doing wrong?" ;))Of course, I don't know how much money you turn over.David
Hi David,the only tax we can manipulate easily is corporation tax, but at the end of the day we have to stay legal and really need to show some profit to reinvest.Other taxes include payments to government or quangos which are compulsory or essential for the running of the business. Such as Council Tax, HGCA levies, BPC levy, NFU levy, LEAF, Natures Choice, ACCS and AP subs etc.Then all the employee taxes.Even if we show a loss we still pay a vast amount.Turnover is approaching £1m but that is not much help if profit is -5%!i'd assume a land tax would replace some other taxes but remain reluctant to give government another income stream to abuse.CheersTim
TM Printing Ltd
Hi David,the only tax we can manipulate easily is corporation tax, but at the end of the day we have to stay legal and really need to show some profit to reinvest.Other taxes include payments to government or quangos which are compulsory or essential for the running of the business. Such as Council Tax, HGCA levies, BPC levy, NFU levy, LEAF, Natures Choice, ACCS and AP subs etc.Then all the employee taxes.Even if we show a loss we still pay a vast amount.Turnover is approaching £1m but that is not much help if profit is -5%!i'd assume a land tax would replace some other taxes but remain reluctant to give government another income stream to abuse.CheersTim
Joan Sutherland
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
--
Joan
------
Joan Sutherland
73 Crown St.
Thunder Bay
davidjtaylor
but is there no tax proposal somewhere that evaluates land from a different perspective?
naturecreekfarm
accessibility. The value of a home is in its location near to where
people want to be.
In our modern consumer/individual empire cultures, the home becomes a
castle off in the hills away from the heat/claustrophobia of a city.
Some homes are in the city, but not so relevant to this land value
discussion. (Cities aren't considered for their land value except by
those with the means to build huge enterprises.)
In general, though, taxing land is kind of non-sensical, as its value
changes over time according to the vague desires of the culture for
places to buy.
The more stuff they acquire, though, the more likely they will want a
place farther from others.
The key is to tax the 'stuff' enough to prevent them from buying it,
and to make the costs of monetary trading relate to the costs of
supporting that trade. It is the trading and profiting that encourage
the consumption of the land for non-land purposes, by stealing stuff
from other places and 'storing' it at a house.
The value of land should be compared to the value of the people on it,
what they do to improve it (producing food, for example), and the
value of preventing people from doing things that remove value from
the land.
Property taxes encourage people to buy land, exploit its present
resources quickly, then get out of it so they don't end up paying
taxes on land that no longer holds resources. This is what lumber
companies and plantation farms did for centuries.
Property taxes are a bad idea in general on that note. Better to
simply have consumption taxes and reduce the trading (business/GDP
economics), thereby encouraging people to be more self-reliant and
community-oriented (bartering) in their activities, rather than buying
products from companies that are canvassing the world looking for
lower land taxes and inflating land prices.
Dan C
Belgium, WI, USA
Joan Sutherland
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
Lila Smith
Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2642 - Release Date: 01/24/10
07:33:00
TIMC...@aol.com
Land value tax might really be a good idea if the government's ideas about value were driven by the needs of our natural environment and the ability of a local to supply its own energy and food as much as possible.Joan
Hi Joan,bring it on!I'll be up for a good refund.Had the Natural England people round on Friday and i've got most of the targeted endangered species. Two even obliged us with a visit as the government inspectors sat here in the office.Next major job is my HLS entry.CheersTim
TIMC...@aol.com
Land should not be owned.
Hi Lila,We do need some system to ensure good stewardship. Short term occupants have tended to take as much as possible from the land leaving it short of nutrients and badly maintained.Ownership also gives a long term view enabling us to invest in infrastructure; principally irrigation network, buildings and tracks here. If i die tomorrow i can be sure that i will be leaving this bit of dirt in better condition physically and environmentally than when i arrived.i do know of someone who owns 100 acres in London and accept that maybe different rules should apply there!CheersTim
TM Printing Ltd
Short term occupants have tended to take as much as possible from the land leaving it short of nutrients and badly maintained.
PAdam...@aol.com
Land should not be owned.
Lila Smith
The Idea Of Owning Land
An old notion forged by the sword
is quietly undergoing a
profound transformation
by Robert Gilman
One of the articles in Living With The Land
(IC#8)
Winter 1984, Page 5
Copyright (c)1985, 1997 by
Context Institute
HOWEVER NATURAL "owning" land may seem in our culture, in the long sweep of human existence, it is a fairly recent invention. Where did this notion come from? What does it really mean to "own" land? Why do we, in our culture, allow a person to draw lines in the dirt and then have almost complete control over what goes on inside those boundaries? What are the advantages, the disadvantages, and the alternatives? How might a humane and sustainable culture re-invent the "ownership" connection between people and the land?
These questions are unfamiliar (perhaps even uncomfortable) to much of our society, for our sense of "land ownership" is so deeply embedded in our fundamental cultural assumptions that we never stop to consider its implications or alternatives. Most people are at best only aware of two choices, two patterns, for land ownership - private ownership (which we associate with the industrial West) and state ownership (as in the Communist East).
Both of these patterns are full of problems and paradoxes. Private ownership enhances personal freedom (for those who are owners), but frequently leads to vast concentrations of wealth (even in the U.S., 75% of the privately held land is owned by 5% of the private landholders), and the effective denial of freedom and power to those without great wealth. State ownership muffles differences in wealth and some of the abuses of individualistic ownership, but replaces them with the often worse abuses of bureaucratic control.
Both systems treat the land as an inert resource to be exploited as fully as possible, often with little thought for the future or respect for the needs of non-human life. Both assume that land ownership goes with a kind of exclusive national sovereignty that is intimately connected to the logic of war.
In short, both systems seem to be leading us towards disaster, yet what other options are there?
The answer, fortunately, is that there are a number of promising alternatives. To understand them, however, we will need to begin by diving deeply into what ownership is and where it has come from.
THE HISTORICAL ROOTS
Beginnings Our feelings about ownership have very deep roots. Most animal life has a sense of territory - a place to be at home and to defend. Indeed, this territoriality seems to be associated with the oldest (reptilian) part the brain (see IN CONTEXT, #6) and forms a biological basis for our sense of property. It is closely associated with our sense of security and our instinctual "fight or flight" responses, all of which gives a powerful emotional dimension to our experience of ownership. Yet this biological basis does not determine the form that territoriality takes in different cultures.
Humans, like many of our primate cousins, engage in group (as well as individual) territoriality. Tribal groups saw themselves connected to particular territories - a place that was "theirs." Yet their attitude towards the land was very different from ours. They frequently spoke of the land as their parent or as a sacred being, on whom they were dependent and to whom they owed loyalty and service. Among the aborigines of Australia, individuals would inherit a special relationship to sacred places, but rather than "ownership," this relationship was more like being owned by the land. This sense of responsibility extended to ancestors and future generations as well. The Ashanti of Ghana say, "Land belongs to a vast family of whom many are dead, a few are living and a countless host are still unborn."
For most of these tribal peoples, their sense of "land ownership" involved only the right to use and to exclude people of other tribes (but usually not members of their own). If there were any private rights, these were usually subject to review by the group and would cease if the land was no longer being used. The sale of land was either not even a possibility or not permitted. As for inheritance, every person had use rights simply by membership in the group, so a growing child would not have to wait until some other individual died (or pay a special fee) to gain full access to the land.
Early Agricultural Societies Farming made the human relationship to the land more concentrated. Tilling the land, making permanent settlements, etc., all meant a greater direct investment in a particular place. Yet this did not lead immediately to our present ideas of ownership. As best as is known, early farming communities continued to experience an intimate spiritual connection to the land, and they often held land in common under the control of a village council. This pattern has remained in many peasant communities throughout the world.
It was not so much farming directly, but the larger-than- tribal societies that could be based on farming that led to major changes in attitudes towards the land. Many of the first civilizations were centered around a supposedly godlike king, and it was a natural extension to go from the tribal idea that "the land belongs to the gods" to the idea that all of the kingdom belongs to the god-king. Since the god-king was supposed to personify the whole community, this was still a form of community ownership, but now personalized. Privileges of use and control of various types were distributed to the ruling elite on the basis of custom and politics.
As time went on, land took on a new meaning for these ruling elites. It became an abstraction, a source of power and wealth, a tool for other purposes. The name of the game became conquer, hold, and extract the maximum in tribute. Just as The Parable Of The Tribes (see IN CONTEXT, #7) would suggest, the human-human struggle for power gradually came to be the dominant factor shaping the human relationship to the land. This shift from seeing the land as a sacred mother to merely a commodity required deep changes throughout these cultures such as moving the gods and sacred beings into the sky where they could conveniently be as mobile as the ever changing boundaries of these empires.
The idea of private land ownership developed as a second step - partly in reaction to the power of the sovereign and partly in response to the opportunities of a larger-than- village economy. In the god-king societies, the privileges of the nobility were often easily withdrawn at the whim of the sovereign, and the importance of politics and raw power as the basis of ownership was rarely forgotten. To guard their power, the nobility frequently pushed for greater legal/customary recognition of their land rights. In the less centralized societies and in the occasional democracies and republics of this period, private ownership also developed in response to the breakdown of village cohesiveness. In either case, private property permitted the individual to be a "little king" of his/her own lands, imitating and competing against the claims of the state.
Later Developments By the early days of Greece and Rome, community common land, state or sovereign land, and private land all had strong traditions behind them. Plato and Aristotle both discussed various mixtures of private and state ownership in ideal societies, with Aristotle upholding the value of private ownership as a means of protecting diversity. As history progressed, the "great ownership debate" has continued between the champions of private interests and the champions of the state, with the idea of community common land often praised as an ideal, but in practice being gradually squeezed out of the picture. Feudal Europe was basically a system of sovereign ownership. The rise of commerce and then industrialism shifted power to the private ownership interests of the new middle class (as in the United States). The reaction against the abuses of industrialism during the past 150 years swung some opinion back again, bringing renewed interest in state ownership (as in the Communist countries).
As important as these swings have been historically, they have added essentially nothing to our basic understanding of, or attitudes about, ownership. Throughout the whole history of civilization land has been seen as primarily a source of power, and the whole debate around ownership has been, "To what extent will the state allow the individual to build a personal power base through land ownership rights?"
TAKING A FRESH LOOK
But the human-human power struggle is hardly the only, or even the most important, issue in our relationship to the land. Whatever happened to the tribal concerns about caring for the land and preserving it for future generations? What about issues like justice, human empowerment and economic efficiency? How about the rights of the land itself? If we are to move forward towards a planetary/ecological age, all of these questions and issues are going to need to be integrated into our relationship to the land. To do this we will have to get out beyond the narrow circle of the ideas and arguments of the past.
We have been talking about "ownership" as if it was an obvious, clear-cut concept: either you own (control) something or you don't. For most people (throughout history) this has been a useful approximation, and it has been the basis of the "great ownership debate." But if you try to pin it down (as lawyers must), you will soon discover that it is not so simple. As surprising as it may seem, our legal system has developed an understanding of "owning" that is significantly different from our common ideas and has great promise as the basis for a much more appropriate human relationship to the land.
Ownership Is A Bundle Of Rights The first step is to recognize that, rather than being one thing, what we commonly call "ownership" is in fact a whole group of legal rights that can be held by some person with respect to some "property." In the industrial West, these usually include the right to:
- use (or not use);
- exclude others from using;
- irreversibly change;
- sell, give away or bequeath;
- rent or lease;
- retain all rights not specifically granted to others;
- retain these rights without time limit or review.
These rights are usually not absolute, for with them go certain responsibilities, such as paying taxes, being liable for suits brought against the property, and abiding by the laws of the land. If these laws include zoning laws, building codes, and environmental protection laws, you may find that your rights to use and irreversibly change are not as unlimited as you thought. Nevertheless, within a wide range you are the monarch over your property.
No One Owns Land Each of these rights can be modified independent of the others, either by law or by the granting of an easement to some other party, producing a bewildering variety of legal conditions. How much can you modify the above conditions and still call it "ownership"? To understand the answer to this, we are going to have to make a very important distinction. In spite of the way we normally talk, no one ever "owns land"..In our legal system you can only own rights to land, you can't directly own (that is, have complete claim to) the land itself. You can't even own all the rights since the state always retains the right of eminent domain. For example, what happens when you sell an easement to the power company so that they can run power lines across you land? They then own the rights granted in that easement, you own most of the other rights, the state owns the right of eminent domain - but no single party owns "the land." You can carry this as far as you like, dividing the rights up among many "owners," all of whom will have a claim on some aspect of the land.
The wonderful thing about this distinction is that it shifts the whole debate about land ownership away from the rigid state-vs.-individual, all-or-nothing battle to the much more flexible question of who (including community groups, families, etc. as well as the state and the individual) should have which rights. This shift could be as important as the major improvement in governance that came with the shift from monolithic power (as in a monarchy) to "division of powers" (as exemplified in the U.S. Constitution with its semi-independent legislative, executive and judicial branches).
Legitimate Interests How might the problems associated with exclusive ownership (either private or state) be solved by a "division of rights" approach? To answer this, we need to first consider what are the legitimate interests that need to be included in this new approach. If we are to address all the concerns appropriate for a humane sustainable culture we need to recognize that the immediate user of the land (be that a household or a business), the local community, the planetary community, future generations, and all of life, all have legitimate interests. What are these interests?
- The immediate users need the freedom to be personally (or
corporately) expressive, creative, and perhaps even eccentric. They need to be
able to invest energy and caring into the land with reasonable security
that the use of the land will not be arbitrarily taken away and that the
full equity value of improvements made to the land will be available to
them either through continued use or through resale should they choose to
move.
- The local community needs optimal use of the land within it,
without having land held arbitrarily out of use by absentee landlords. It
needs to be able to benefit from the equity increases in the land
itself due to the overall development of the community, and it needs
security that its character will not be forced to change through
inappropriate land use decisions made by those outside the community or those
leaving the community.
- The planetary community, future generations, and all of life need sustainable use - the assurance that ecosystems and topsoil that have been developed over hundreds of thousands of years will not be casually destroyed; that the opportunities for life will be enhanced; that non-renewal resources will be used efficiently and for long term beneficial purposes. This larger community also needs meaningful recognition that the earth is our common heritage.
Is it possible to blend these various interests in a mutually supportive way, rather than seeing them locked in a power struggle? The answer, fortunately, is yes. Perhaps the best developed alternative legal form that does this is called a land trust.
LAND TRUSTS
A land trust is a non-governmental organization (frequently a non-profit corporation) that divides land rights between immediate users and their community. It is being used in a number of places around the world including India, Israel, Tanzania, and the United States. Of the many types of land trusts, we will focus here on three - conservation trusts, community trusts, and stewardship trusts. These will be discussed in more detail in other articles in this section, but an initial overview now will help to draw together many of the threads we have developed so far.
In a conservation land trust, the purpose is generally to preserve some aspect of the natural environment. A conservation trust may do this by the full ownership of some piece of land that it then holds as wilderness, or it may simply own "development rights" to an undeveloped piece. What are development rights? When the original owner sells or grants development rights to the conservation trust, they put an easement (a legal restriction) on the land that prevents them or any future owners from developing the land without the agreement of the conservation trust. They have let go of the right to "irreversibly change" listed above. The conservation trust then holds these rights with the intention of preventing development. The Trust For Public Land (82 Second St, San Francisco, CA 94105, 415/495-4015) helps community groups establish conservation and agricultural land trusts.
A community land trust (CLT) has as its purpose removing land from the speculative market and making it available to those who will use it for the long term benefit of the community. A CLT generally owns full title to its lands and grants long term (like 99-year) renewable leases to those who will actually use the land. Appropriate uses for the land are determined by the CLT in a process comparable to public planning or zoning. Lease fees vary from one CLT to another, but they are generally more than taxes and insurance, less than typical mortgage payments, and less than full rental cost. The lease holders have many of the use and security rights we normally associate with ownership. They own the buildings on the land and can take full benefit from improvements they make to the land. They can not, however, sell the land nor can they usually rent or lease it without the consent of the trust. The Institute For Community Economics (57 School St. Springfield, MA 01105, 413/746-8660) is one of the major support groups for the creation of community land trusts in both urban and rural settings.
The stewardship trust combines features of both the conservation trust and the CLT, and is being used now primarily by intentional communities and non-profit groups such as schools. The groups using the land (the stewards) generally pay less than in a normal CLT, but there are more definite expectations about the care and use they give to the land.
In each one of these types, the immediate users (nonhuman as well as human) have clear rights which satisfy all of their legitimate use needs. The needs of the local community are met through representation on the board of directors of the trust which can enforce general land use standards. The larger community usually has some representation on the trust's board as well. Thus by dividing what we normally think of as ownership into "stewardship" (the users) and "trusteeship" (the trust organization), land trusts are pioneering an approach that better meets all the legitimate interests.
The system is, of course, still limited by the integrity and the attitudes of the people involved. Nor are current land trusts necessarily the model for "ownership" in a humane sustainable culture. But they show what can be done and give us a place to build from. I'll explore more of where we might build to in a later article, but now lets turn to other perspectives and experiences with going beyond ownership
Joan Sutherland
"As surprising as it may seem, our legal system has developed an understanding of "owning" that is significantly different from our common ideas and has great promise as the basis for a much more appropriate human relationship to the land."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
naturecreekfarm
"professionals". ;-)
I think Lila is right in the simple sense, but why do we have to make
it so specialized? Why is land ownership different than other
property? Why is it okay to own other resources, such as a vehicle or
a bed or a refrigerator or a bottle of water? What is this 'ownership'
thing, anyway?
If one looks at it the right way, the entire national existence of the
U.S. is based upon property ownership rights. We have a constitution
to separate out that we can't own other people (and that only
recently), but generally, "for the general welfare" means "for the
welfare of the wealthy".
The whole concept of using money itself is based upon buying and
selling things. You can't buy and sell things if we are all one
organism, so first we have to be separated into individuals. Then, we
have to be taught to compete with each other. Then we have to be
taught to 'respect authority' so that we give some of our 'hard won'
money to government or a church or the banks.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to sell fish
and you boil the oceans."
You see, it's the selling thing that seems to be the problem. Existing
has taken second place to the selling process.
How would one set up rules of cooperative living without selling
things that don't allow for bullies to take over (democracy)? I think
the first thing that we have to accept is that humans are no smarter
than any other animals, and that lawyers are a symptom of our failure
to accept that our imagination is a monkey on our backs, not the
'gift' we perceive it to be. Just as it extends our senses beyond our
reach, it extends our desires beyond rational means.
Counteracting the desires of humans must be automatic, not reliant
upon our education or intelligence. Both have been proven unreliable.
Consumption taxes work if we accept that taxes are necessary and that
government is necessary, but only if government works based on our
future, not on our desires, and makes the taxes appropriate to
consumption's effects on the future.
Perhaps only children should write laws. They have the most at stake.
Ask a 6 year old what we should do about Global Warming and they would
probably solve our dilemma with two words: "stop it".
Dan Conine
Belgium, WI