Peter Joseph, an American independent filmmaker and activist, discusses The Big Question: Environmental Misalignment and The Value War at TEDxOjai on February 29, 2012. Below is the full transcript.
Peter Joseph – American independent filmmaker and activist
The title of this presentation is, The Big Question: Environmental Misalignment and The Value War.
Human society today has two diametrically opposed systems of economy. One is our traditionally imposed mode of monetary-market economics, the other is a physical rule structure emerging from our growing scientific recognition of reality, both environmentally and sociologically. The consequence is an ever increasing level of social destabilization and an ongoing decline in public health.
I’ve divided this into two brief sections, the first part is called: System Clash: Market Efficiency vs. Technical Efficiency. The part two: Value Wars: Societal Potential, Collapse and Transition, what we are capable of doing, what’s in store for us if we don’t, how we can get out of this system, etcetera.
Before I begin part one — economy, what is economy? It’s defined in Greek as the management of a household, a definition that’s often lost. To economize, what does that mean? It means to increase efficiency. Keep that in mind. Reducing waste. That’s what an economy is supposed to be.
Defining my terms. We’re going to use two terms throughout this presentation. The first is a theoretical notion of an ‘Earth Economy’ which I will define as decisions made directly based upon scientific understandings as they relate to optimized habitat management and human health. Production and distribution is regulated by the most technically efficient and sustainable approaches known. Compared to our currently existing market economy, defined: “Decisions are based on independent human actions through the vehicle of monetary exchange, regulated by the pressures of supply and demand. Production and distribution is enabled by the buying and selling of labor and material provisions, with the motivations of a person or group, the self-interest, as the defining attribute of unfolding.”
This is a chart of seven economic attributes, many more, but this is what I want to focus on here. Basically they are intrinsic to each economy, in comparison. Obviously I’m focusing on the market economy and its relationship to a natural system, what we are calling the ‘Earth Economy’.
The only caveat here with these asterisks, are elements of sociological development based on scientific integrity, scientific ingenuity. The evolution of science and our knowledge of ourselves and of the environment. That will be talked about as we go along, as we touch upon each one of these.
First point: consumption. In a market economy the entire thing is based on consumption, the only reason that you are wearing clothes, the only reason you are eating, the only reason that you have a home is because someone, somewhere is buying a service or giving a service, exchanging money in some form and consuming. That’s what the system is.
What does the natural world have to say about that? What does an ‘Earth Economy’ have to say? Well, in all reason, the Earth is a finite closed system. Preservation, not consumption, should be the ethos. If you lived on an island with a small group of people and you had a finite amount of resources with a natural generation of growth, a very simplified society, would you decide to make an economic system that try to use that up as fast as possible? No, and I’m afraid the Earth is an isolated island in a vast cosmic sea, if you will, and it’s a lot smaller than we think.
Point two: obsolescence. The market system is driven explicitly by obsolescence. Two: Intrinsic obsolescence. Intrinsic obsolescence being the use of cost-efficiency, meaning that every good produced has to be inferior at the moment it’s made because the corporate institutions must save money at the very beginning of production to remain competitive against everyone else that’s competing.
Planned obsolescence, which is much more insidious, which is basically a form of fraud, even though it’s completely codified and formalized as a marketing tactic. Basically designs goods to break down under the assumption of repeat purchases and it’s truly amazing that this exists at all.
And what does nature have to say about this? Well, building upon what we’ve just stated, it’s environmentally irresponsible to design goods to fail or allow them to fail unnecessarily. That is basically offensive, we need optimum design, to have things last, survive.
Point three: property. The ownership metaphysic is a core premise allowing controlled restriction of resources and goods. They say metaphysic as property isn’t real. There is no such thing of ownership in the broad scheme, not either intellectual or physical goods. It’s all transient.
The idea of everyone owning one of everything, for example — does that make a lot of sense when we think about our natural economy? What about the use of goods? What about access? The natural environment demands access. Universal property is inefficient. Strategic access is more environmentally responsible as a model and more socially efficient. If you have a car that you drive, maybe 40% of the time, why not let the other 60% be used by somebody else? You create a system of access and use, that’s environmentally responsible.