(defined as a human culture sustainable in the long term)
by
Joseph Jay Schiller
It shall be the purpose of this document to describe what the author thinks is
a workable worldwide human culture that, in the absence of calamitous environmental
change could be expected to have a long stable life. In general it would appear that
civilization is tending in this direction of its own accord, but one has to wonder if
sufficient time remains. It might behoove us to recognize, as in the effort to discover or
invent something, where we are tending and take the most efficient path to the
objective.
At this point in human history, it is reasonable to question whether the civilized model can or should survive. Against it is the strong
supposition that it is deadly to the environment and therefore shouldn’t survive. On the
other side is the fact that this is what makes humans unique and therefore it should be
retained, if possible. Strong arguments can be made either way, but, I don’t think it can be
argued that the duty of any species is to survive. We
are correct to identify civilization as part of the definition of what a human being is,
therefore to be an anarchist is to turn against one’s species and to give up on the primary
duty of any living thing. Of course it is no doubt true that giving up civilization would
cause us to adapt to a new uncivilized style of life, but this would amount to the death of
the species since, we would then be something else than we now are.
What is inherent in life and civilization and therefore are not things to be
eliminated in defining an ideal society? Poverty, disease, and mental anguish. The issue is
only to keep these things at a normal level. The only way to keep these things at an
absolute minimum is to give up civilization, as can readily be seen by observing the other
inhabitants of our world. Eliminating overpopulation would give to us the best hope of
minimizing poverty. Humility minimizes disease and mental anguish.
Since all forms of governments and economic models have been tried (this
statement arises from The Theory of Spectra), some many
times, it is reasonable to expect that the time for synthesis has arrived. That it is within
our capabilities to settle, once and for all, the proper model for human governance. The
synthesis will have to be all inclusive if it is to be universal in scope and stable. Synthesis
is also necessary because of the limited time available to us due to the undoubted
catastrophe that will befall us if we do not develop the ability to control our numbers and
therefore assure the survival of the environment within which we live.
Given the deepening environmental crisis that confronts us, we can say that
no existing culture has yet developed into sustainability. That is because there is, as yet,
no consensus about the state of the environment, nor the causes leading to its current
condition, nor any realistic attempt to control human numbers. The control of human
numbers is the linchpin of the problem. The environmental
crisis is apparent to all but the mentally deprived or ideologically blinded, with the second
case being the most common. There is a tendency for humans to view the world in
black/white either/or terms. This is similar to low resolution video. It is a rough
approximation of the situation we are borne into but only that. The reality is various
shades of gray. The result is an all or nothing attitude that concludes that it is either our
way or the devil’s.
If we are to arrange things to support a maximal human population, great
care will be required to design the supporting institutions to assure sustainability. Much
smaller numbers of humans, of course, as in the past would allow for further
experimentation. It isn’t at all clear that any further experimentation, at least on a wide
scale, such as the recent experiment with communism in Russia is called for.
Government
The first requirement of any human civilization is a workable government. A
workable government is easily described as one that provides stability. Instability isn’t
difficult to achieve, anarchy works fine. Look at Lebanon. Exclusive governments are
also unstable, since the excluded will eventually gain enough power to overthrow it. Since
so many efforts have been made in this field, we can readily dismiss any that have already
been tried and have failed, therefore the best existing government with modifications
should be the model upon which to base a universal government. It will require
modifications since no government yet deals with the environment or human population
adequately. So, in general we can identify the government towards which most countries
are currently tending and which is best represented by the USA as the general model.
The inclusivity feature is crucial. Governments have tended towards the
exclusive in the past and have suffered as a result. France failed to include the working
class and suffered a revolution. Russia failed to include their ideological opposites and
came to the same end. All have failed to accept women and are in the process of now
being forced to do so. America failed to include the non white races and has suffered a
civil war among other instabilities as a result. So, these are the spectra that are important
in this regard. The sexual, racial, class, and ideological spectra must all be included.
The American Model
Two party, three branch, constitutional, democratic republic
The American model is well known world wide, and therefore I won’t
describe it here. Many books on the subject are available everywhere. It is even possible
to view it in action on various cable networks. This model isn’t, however, sufficient,
otherwise alternative forms would not exist. Communism is the main alternative that has
been proposed, though in the form it has been installed up until now, it is not a
competitive system. Is communism in some form necessary, and if so, where?
The recent examples of Russia and China are very instructive here. The main
reasons for the attempt to develop the communist model were excesses of various sorts in
the free market economy, and those were most undesirable in the agrarian sector. The
tendency of free markets towards monopoly was the problem and it was most noticeable
and undesirable in the agrarian sector. So, Russia and China experimented with
communism because they were mainly agrarian cultures and had suffered the problems
inherent in large farming enterprises owned by single families.
The US managed to fend off the problem with a network of laws tending to
limit the development of large family owned farming enterprises (mainly confiscatory
inheritance laws), but the problem is still there as can be seen by the continuing decline of
the numbers of farming families. This is because public corporations, not subject to
inheritance laws are slowly absorbing family farms. This is not good for the culture, since
one of the important sources of values is the family farm. This is probably due to the
confrontation between the farmer and nature, an experience city dwellers are insulated
from. On the other side, Russia and China found themselves incapable of managing the
industrial sector due to its complications and the need for highly developed capital
management and individual creativity. That is because the communist model, being group
driven eliminates the profit motive and therefore a large source of creativity.
Therefore, the proposal to be made here is to recognize that China’s
experiment with a hybrid capitalist/communist system is probably a good idea. Capitalism
to dominate the industrial sector and urban areas and communism to dominate the agrarian
sector and the farming communities. This is also important on ideological grounds, which
will be pointed out below.
The United Nations
This institution will have to continue to exist and be strengthened. For
efficiency’s sake, a world economy must be developed and regulated. The regulation falls
naturally into the purview of the UN, along with all of the responsibilities thus far
identified as most reasonably dealt with there. This is because of the need to mediate
between nations in the area of international trade. GATT, the misnamed General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, is a logical extension to the currently designed UN,
along with the World Bank, whose function it is to attempt to correct structural economic
problems in member nations. Long term imbalances in trade would appear to be
undesirable, so an international body is needed to provide official recognition that a
problem exists that must be corrected. No doubt countries can have imbalances nation to
nation, but overall imbalances should be a signal that something is structurally wrong.
One can ask how this body could be expected to correct situations like those
now on display in central Africa. They are difficult problems, but, general recognition
from the world at large that their solution is imperative from any perspective or the whole
civilized enterprise is threatened, should produce the necessary actions. Clearly
investment is called for and to get it requires only governmental stability and a reliable
currency in the affected country. So, world pressure on individual countries to work
towards the universal governmental model, with sanctions such as those being
experimented with in Iraq, must eventually be effective. Probably UN endorsement for
currencies and a requirement for UN approval of currency changes, with withdrawal of
endorsement when unilateral changes are attempted will be necessary.
Then there is the question of rogue countries like Iran, North Korea, Libya,
etc. Force is not called for but isolation and international pressure with economic
sanctions in the worst cases will bring about reform eventually. These countries are over
committed to one ideology or another and doubt the value of inclusiveness. They are
mainly a reaction to world acceptance of the importance of feminism. Feminism will
certainly lose its extreme character which arises from its long suppression, in the fullness
of time, which will make it more appealing to such countries.
As is being made progressively more clear, feminism has to be included in any
comprehensive government. In the west masculinism has dominated for a long time to the
extent of excluding feminism. This may have been appropriate in the developmental years
but no longer can be maintained. On the other hand the masculinist model is necessary in
some venues and has to be retained where it makes sense. Where is that? Well, this will
have to be determined on a case by case basis, but, the goal should always be to maintain a
balance. The power made available to the feminists should in all cases be balanced by an
opposing masculinist power base. This is not so hard to accomplish, it requires only that
one have a care regarding this problem when making appointments to the various
departments. Feminists will hire feminists and the opposite. Of course the President will
be one or the other and will over compensate for perceived injustices of the past, just as
the Clinton administration is too focused on appointing feminists. But, the voters can
compensate in the next election.
Politics also has to encompass the conservative and liberal tendencies in
human nature, but this is generally the case in most human institutions of any size today.
It should be recognized that the definition of liberal is amenable to change, while the
opposite tendency characterizes conservatives. Change is necessary because the
environment within which we operate is continually changing. The most important change
is population increase because it has the most widespread effects, though the causality is
not widely recognized at this time. On the other hand, too rapid change also causes
instability as can be seen in the growth of fundamentalism. A balance is called for. When
population stabilizes, change will not be so common or necessary.
The Arts and the Media
This area is much harder to manage since it is by its nature outside of official
control and we must rely on the courts. The problem with that is the tendency of the
courts to assume too much power and to lose sight of the general principle that
centralization has also to be balanced with decentralization. It should be clear that the
central government can have no power over the arts and the media, and should always
avoid using its power to subvert them. Not only should the central government avoid
passing restrictive rules, it should also avoid subsidization. This is true because as soon as
the arts become dependent on federal money, the government will use that dependence as
a cudgel to force compliance with what it considers to be cultural normalcy, which, of
course, will not include criticism of it. Both support and control are undesirable, if the
institution is to function effectively as a check on the government.
On the other hand, the media, due to the profit motive, will have a tendency
to violate local values, so it is necessary that the Supreme Court jealously guard the rights
of local communities, within reason, to establish rules governing the local media according
to local standards. That is to say that any kind of censorship should be allowed on a
sufficiently local level, say the city/county. At the central government, no censorship
should be allowed that cannot be demonstrated to be required by national security.
The above referenced document contains a description of these two opposing
ideologies. In general, the industrial west can correctly be labeled masculinist while the
rest of the world is best described as feminist. Clearly these two opposing ideological
forces have to find suitable expression in any comprehensive human culture. The natural
home of feminism will be found in the agrarian sector, while the industrial sector is where
masculinism is most commonly practiced. The values of feminism will degrade
industrialization because of restrictive rules regarding the environment, and masculinism is
harmful to the environment and therefore should not dominate the agrarian sector. This is
a big change from the current state of affairs. Masculinism has been applied to the farm in
the hope of eliminating hunger. This is a naive short term idea and the price will be too
high as is becoming more and more apparent. The methods of masculinism: pesticides,
herbicides, and genetic engineering are too destructive in the long term. Suitable feminist
watchdog groups can solve this problem.
The family, defined where members share a close blood or marriage
relationship, is crucial to the well functioning culture as the basic unit of organization upon
which all other organizations are based. Masculinism should dominate in the family so as
to maintain order, though that should be policy only. Individual families should decide
what is best in individual cases. Policy should determine such laws as are necessary to
define family life. These should be minimalist in nature.
Economics
Communism vs. Capitalism
What is wrong with capitalism? The tendency of the profit motive to
override common sense regarding resource utilization and a tendency to always increase in
size which results in too much centralization of power.
What is wrong with communism? The tendency to stifle creativity and
eliminate motivation.
So, the goal will be to identify suitable venues in which each can operate in a
complementary way.
I suggest, in general using communism as the general model for the agrarian
sector and capitalism in industry. Of course all institutions will have to have their feminist
and masculinist wings.
Inclusiveness is key. If you don’t include them, they will soon enough get
strong enough to elliminate you. Communism is a group based ideology and therefore
feminist, while capitalism is individual based and therefore masculine. One must have
individuals, or risk losing creativity. But, clearly if the group doesn’t succeed, the
individual loses too.
Population
Controlled numbers
Human population has to be controlled or
disasters of various sorts will inevitably ensue. This is not difficult to comprehend or even
experiment with. Overpopulation isn’t new, it isn’t even
new for our species. The natural laws governing population will inevitably make
themselves felt, which will make the survival of civilization problematic at best and more
likely doom it.
The methods of population control are well known, they are just unpalatable.
The most likely approach is decentralized. Appoint committees, similar to school boards,
at the lowest level and require that families apply for the privilege of procreating. This
will, of course, require government mandated abortions for violators. Since governments
aren’t individuals, and their responsibilities are towards the group rather than the
individual, this does not present an insurmountable moral problem.
At the outset the goal must be to stop the increase of human population,
already way too large. But, soon it will be necessary to reduce the numbers of humans to
achieve stability.
Immigration and natural birth
Immigration is a valuable feature of human life and must be allowed to
continue in all countries. It is the only check on the racist and destructive notion that
there are superior and inferior groups of humans. This idea arises from ideology and has
been most noticeable in the most ideological bastion of humanity, Western Europe. But
immigration, along with natural birth have to be designed to maintain the optimum
population, to be determined by suitably designed committees in any individual country
and within the constraints provided by the international authority, the UN. The UN
should be responsible for identifying a target number for the world and apportioning that
number on an equitable basis to individual countries, who have the responsibility for
seeing to it that the target is realized.
Education
Private education vs. Public education
Education is a function of the operation of the masculine principle. It is,
therefore, an overgeneralization to conclude, as is done in the West, that every person
should have as much education as possible. Feminism will be unimpressed with ever
increasing the dominance of the ego, which is the purpose of education, so that, certainly
in that sector of society to be dominated by feminism education should be minimized.
That is to say in the agrarian sector. On the other hand the pursuit of intellectual values
should be available to those who wish. Therefore a two pronged system is called for.
Public education should be minimalist, providing the minimum requirements of citizenship
and private institutions should be available for those who wish, on their own resources to
take advantage of them.
Again, the idea is to be inclusive. We include the intellectuals and the non
intellectuals, and avoid identifying a favorite amongst them. An intellectual approach to
the development of technology or the investigation of philosophy is best, while a non
intellectual approach to the care of the land is best. This will produce a certain amount of
conflict, but a certain amount is the right amount.
Health
Private responsibility vs. Public responsibility
In the health field a similar attitude is called for as in the education field. It is
best to view artificial prolongation of life as a luxury available to those who can afford it
and who find it desirable. In the public sector, however, health care should be of the
minimalist variety with efficiency uppermost in the minds of the administrators. That is,
each citizen should be provided with the tools necessary to live a healthy life: education
regarding healthy choices, access to adequate food, clothing, and shelter. But, no more.
Accident victims should be cared for as a humanitarian responsibility, but recovery from
heart attacks, cancer, and strokes should not be included.
Again, we are inclusive. Those that wish to pursue long life are accorded the
opportunity, while those happy with that provided by our genes are also allowed.
This will mean that taxes cannot be used to support efforts falling into the
realm of human life prolongation. Otherwise there would be no democratic way to deny
the results to any who apply, an economically infeasible objective, as is becoming
increasingly obvious in the industrialized countries.
Environment
Private Property vs. Public Lands
The issue of public and private lands is a difficult one. No one doubts that
there is a need for both, but where to draw the line? It is obvious that private dwellings
fare better when owned and that that is therefore the most efficient method of handling
such places. It is also psychologically superior. On the other hand, lands that are
commonly used are best dealt with as publicly owned and managed by the
government.
As was previously pointed out, farmlands don’t do well in private hands
because of the problem of power and growth which lead to a few families owning
everything and some form of slavery resulting, which is unstable. Thus, a form of
communism with land commonly held and leased to users and a percentage of the produce
used to pay for the privilege would seem to be the obvious answer. It is also clear that
high density population in cities works best with property held in some kind of
cooperative. That is to say that large apartment buildings in cities are already publicly held
through stock shares, even though we assign the operation to the private sector.
So, my conclusion is that private property should extend only to the products
of man: houses, the goods within houses, anything manufactured by man except those
structures too large or expensive for private ownership such as large planes, boats, and
buildings.
This problem is clearly related to population density also. If a man lives in a
very isolated condition, he cannot impinge on his neighbors sensibilities, while in tightly
packed environments it is difficult to avoid doing so. Thus, a well designed system will
allow private ownership of land up to some threshold of population density and revert to
some sort of public ownership after that.
Summary
While it is true that the American government is the base model for a
universal culture, it none the less has a long way to go. At present the feminists are in
danger of gaining control of the industrial sector which would be a disaster, while the
masculinists have control of the agrarian sector which is already a disaster. The most
important policy at present is to maintain a friendly relationship with China, since they
have the only experiment in dual ideology, which the American system must absorb before
it will truly arrive at sustainability.