People are focusing on containing this virus and reducing death and suffering (at least some are, see my last blog). This is all well and good and should be done. However, this “down time” was/is also a time to rethink how almost everything is done. Yes, I mean everything. What could I be talking about (have I lost my mind?)? Let’s find out.
First off, the most likely reason why this virus came about in the first place and spread to the human species so easily is because we have acted so irresponsibly regarding our production of food. Someone ate an infected bat or snake (which ate the bat). In 2020, humans shouldn’t be eating such food (nor other “more civilized” forms of food, more on this soon). Scientists had been predicting this for years (see ref 1 and ref 2) and yet almost nothing was done. In fact, we keep increasing our risk for additional pandemics because of how we raise food (see ref 3 and ref 4). But have you heard anything about changing the way we raise food during the past couple months? There are ecologically-grounded ways to raise food that would greatly reduce our risk of future pandemics, so we need to integrate them immediately. Unfortunately, nearly all institutions of “higher” learning promote the same, large scale, monoculturally-driven, dangerous methods of agriculture—ones destined to promote more infectious diseases.
Second, we need to overhaul nearly all mainstream media forms. Why? Well, a short list of demonstrable reasons includes: (1) they have failed to address the above issue/link regarding agriculture and disease; (2) they have held very, very few leaders accountable for lies and extreme blunders (if not, criminal acts); (3) they continue to rely almost entirely on the profits derived from advertising (one of the reasons why they are incapable of holding anyone associated with extreme wealth and power accountable for anything); and, (4) they focus almost no attention on what we, as an empowered citizenry working collectively, can do to stem the tide of wrongdoings or accelerate the positive changes that are possible and necessary. Rather, we are told daily that we must wait for a vaccine and for the weather to improve…and of course, wash our hands and wear our masks. Time to change, no?
Third, we need to remove money from the process of determining who our elected representatives are. This has long been known and yet those that are elected, they themselves products of a corrupted system that increasing relies on more and more $$, do little to nothing to correct it. (In fact, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 which gave corporations unlimited ability to fund political campaigns—a 5-4 decision mind you—suggests how money has contaminated nearly all levels of Federal government.)
Fourth, we need to reconsider what money is and how it functions in our society. The current crisis and, specifically, the ability for the federal government to send out trillions of dollars of money to companies and citizens, should send a message to all of us. Money is just “paper” or an “electronic” form of power. It is only as meaningful as the powerful in a society make it to be. Consider a diamond? What if you had a five-pound diamond in your possession. What would it be worth? Practically nothing, unless you could convince someone that it was worth something (to look at, wear, or use as a paper weight)? This is actually the same for money. Consider taking old Argentine bills (before its economic collapse) or even current Japanese yen to your local grocery store. The merchants there would laugh at you, even if you had a LOT of coinage. There are ways to conduct our economy that are outside the currently dominant monetary system (I will blog about this next). We need to really look at this carefully and do it soon.
There is more, a lot more (future blog? readers’ comments?) to be done. But these four things are among the four key ones. What do you think needs to be done? What are you willing to do to get these things done?
And finally, why now? This is another blog in itself, but suffice it to say that people are probably most aware that the systems protecting us and providing for us are broken at so many levels. They, hopefully, are more inclined to consider new ideas and maybe even try something different now.
First off, the reason bats, etc., have been consumed is that people were starving and sought out some form of repeatably harvested protein. China is not kind to its kept minions. Starving people cannot be taken to task for decisions we, who have enough, find distasteful. But OUR food system, here at home? Oh, it’s changed — factory farmed/ pharmed meat animals, raised in torturous conditions, can now be claimed as “humanely raised,” since the guv’mint “relaxed” standards. Unconscionable. Salatin may be a neo-con, but his meat-animal system is sound: one bad day, for consumption within a world where we all must kill to survive, carrots, bacteria, and cattle, plus the ground-dwellers killed for soy. The whole system is unconscionable; you are, of course, correct here.
I have no issue with masks. I detest what passes for journalism these days. The media is a corporate-captured entity … just like most science, and most especially vaccine “science.” Citizens United (ha!) is an example of how corrupt are our other institutions: it’s Corporations United, and it’s been increasing since the New Deal, the original one. (We need that back, or, better, some form of socialism.) Money is becoming another topic that should absolutely bring us to terror. We are working toward an AI future here, backed by microchipping via the Gates empire. It’s all a system of uniformity, conformity, and much worse, trackability. I find masks an inconvenience, but a necessary one — there is no right violation there. Not any more than driving within the lines on a freeway rather than “choosing” to center one’s vehicle over them. The fear-mongering out there is absurd. There are real rights being quietly mis-handled, reeled in, replaced with a surveillance state we seem to be oblivious to. Has nothing to do with masks.
Anyway, I’m with you on all this. You know our points of disagreement: I find civ inherently unsustainable so I’m not looking to preserve it, and being aware that species diversity is required for life on this tender planet means I will talk about overshoot (and population limitations on first worlders, for sure). But that’s not much, in the scheme of things. I appreciate your blog. When are we collectively going to brainstorm solutions? Been ready for at least 40 years, could make a case for 50.
On the fourth point, possible alternatives and their advantages and disadvantages can be seen in the paper Money Alternatives, which may be of interest to you. It can be accessed at https://www.academia.edu/s/b36b6a7e5c
Paul, you piqued my interest at the first mention of the Gift Economy. I have followed Genevieve Vaughan (and Matilda Joslyn Gage, author from the 1880s who first introduced the idea in my world) for decades. Is there a limit to the number of people to allow Gifting to work? I suspect there is. Or, if ‘communitarianism’ means “a theory or system of social organization based on small self-governing communities,” then what size is ‘small’?
What scares me most is how we’re being moved toward economic AI, via blockchain technology, described as ‘geo-engineering and ethnic cleansing on a digital platform’ in a circulating Facebook post. Surely we don’t want to go this direction?
And maybe most importantly, are there others locally who are interested in studying this particular set of ideas?
diana,
I don’t have the depth of reading which you have on the gifting economy but will try to communicate my take on it, and its relationship to money in a mass economy.
In order for a mass economy to work in a mutual and democratic way, it is my belief that it needs to be divided up into small enough communities that people can at least know who each other are. In this context caring for each other, rather than individual gain can operate.
However even in these communities, and especially between them, there is a need for a system of trade that assures that all take part in the provision of community needs as well as their own. Mutual money can by its nature give a yard stick to balance individual needs with those of the community.
However at the same time there needs to be a mechanism for taking care of those who for one reason or another are not able to take care of their needs. This is where the gifting economy and its relative, taxes, which as I mentioned in the paper are a form of mandated gifting, comes into play. Gifting is a way of sharing enoughness.
Hope this helps.
Oh, it helps, and thank you for the response, Paul! I have started reading your paper, and will continue to do so. Five pages in I think I have five pages of notes! I started, then stopped because I’m so tired of responses only going to the blog author, with no chance of discussion between readers. So thank you, deeply, for breaking that pattern. I see possibility here. I lament to Peter often how few responses he gets from all his thought-provoking work. Awesome, this!
Diana,
Wondering if you have continued reading. If you are willing and interested, I would be interested in seeing your notes, to see if I am getting my ideas across effectively, and see how you respond to them.
Just came back to re-read this post and found your last reply. Glad to hear that you found new information worth making notes on.
Didn’t know that you were in some way close to Peter. Wondering if the two of you have discussed the paper. May I ask if you are family or friends?
Friends, or co-workers on projects, maybe. I was in contact with Peter, who was then writing in The Zephyr, before I even moved to the Midwest, and I have worked with him on a number of community projects, projects mostly of his initiation, since 2005. Neither close nor distant, we’ve never communicated on this.