February 15, 2009

the nature of profit – profit from nature

(FROM CAPITALISM TO ECO-SOCIALISM)

THE PLANETARY CRISIS

The Destruction of the global Ecology: The large-scale news about the ecological crisis is virtually all bad. It is an account of the steady, albeit non-linear, disintegration of the planet’s ecology (p. ix).

On February 14, 2009, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Christopher Field, Professor of Environmental Earth System Science, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, and coordinating lead author of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report (2007), revealed that the rate of global carbon emissions into the atmosphere increased from 0.9 percent per year from 1990 to 1999, to 3.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2008. No part of the world had a decline in emissions during the latter period. Field commented:

“[Predictions are] now outside the entire envelope of possibilities [considered in the 2007 Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change]. We are basically looking at a future climate that is beyond anything that we have considered seriously in climate model simulations.”

A rate of increase of 3.5 percent yearly means a doubling in 20 years. In absolute terms, this would represent an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 385 parts per million in 2008, to 770 in 2029 – without considering the effect of feedback loops.

One such feedback loop is the one engendered by the present melting of the Arctic permafrost, which threatens the release into the atmosphere, during this century, of 350 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (along with methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide). This amount of carbon is the same as that released by humanity, from fossil fuels, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. At present, humanity releases 10 billion metric tons of carbon yearly. In total, the permafrost holds 1,000 billion (one trillion) tons of carbon.

This news of an unexpectedly high rate of global carbon emissions, comes on the heals of an October 2008 paper, co-authored by James Hansen, Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Sciences Division, Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y. The authors caution:

“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed, and to which life on Earth is adapted, Paleo-climate evidence and ongoing climate change, suggest that carbon dioxide will need to be reduced from its current 385 parts per million to, at most, 350 parts per million.”

Also on February 14, 2009, during the same annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to which Christopher Field spoke, Anny Cazenave, of the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiale (National Center for Space Studies), Toulouse, France, announced that sea levels are rising faster than expected. In parts of the North Atlantic, the Western Pacific, and the Southern Ocean, the rate is 1 centimeter (0.39 inch) per year.

(Democracy Now! 2009a, p. 4. Democracy Now! 2009b, p. 3. Associated Press 2009, p. 1. Science and Development Network 2009, pp. 1-2. Environmental Law Professor Blogs Network 2009, p. 1. Media Lens Message Board 2009, pp. 1-2. Regime Shift 2009, p. 1. Washington Post 2009, pp. 1-3. Environment News Service 2009, pp. 1-4. Hansen et al 2008, pp. 217-231, cited in Hall 2009, p. 7. Cazenave 2006, p. 1).

(See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “Capitalism as is – without modification”).

A pathological human Ecology: The deterioration of all nature’s ecosystems is engendered by the same imperialism which curtails human lives, both physically and emotionally.

Nature, previously sufficiently resilient, is being exploited beyond its limits. The carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere, the sowing of the biosphere with organo-chlorines and other toxins, the wasting of the soil due to the “green revolution,” the prodigious loss of species, the disintegration of Amazonia and other tropical forests, the elimination of coral reefs, the loss of genetic diversity, desertification, shrinking water supplies, lack of clean water, radioactive contamination, the depletion of raw materials, the decline of the earth’s ecosystems, and much more – all represent the spiraling tentacles of a great crisis in the relationship between humanity and nature (pp. xii, 12, 39, 66 and 89).

Humans are part of nature, and the crisis, therefore, is between the human ecosystem (society) and the other planetary ecosystems which together form “nature.” It is the present phase in the evolution of an ancient lesion in the relationship of humanity to nature – a cancer in our spirit which causes us to refuse seeing ourselves as part of the inter-connected whole of nature. The disease is not in an “environment” outside us. It is in the human ecology, in our seeing ourselves split off from nature.

Industrialization is not an independent force. It is the hammer with which nature is being decimated for the sake of capital. Industrial logging destroys forests. Industrial fishing destroys fisheries. Industrial chemistry makes Frankenfood. Industrial use of fossil fuels creates the greenhouse effect – all for the sake of value-expansion (pp. xii-xiii, 14, 20, 96-97 and 140).

Political Responses: In industrialized nations, in “developing” nations, and at the level of the United Nations, political responses are still based on money. All aim for economic growth, even though any growth in capitalistic economies increases the demand for fossil fuels, and hence compounds the ecological crisis. In capitalistic societies, any increase in economic activity will worsen the crisis.

* Industrialized Nations:

On February 9, 2009, speaking in Elkhard, Indiana, President Barack Obama, of the United States, declared:

“At [the]core [of the Recovery and Re-investment Plan that is now before Congress] is a very simple idea: to put Americans back to work doing the work America needs done. The plan will save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years – but not just any jobs, jobs that meet the needs we’ve neglected for far too long – and lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.”

Again, on February 22, 2009, during his weekly radio address to the nation, Obama harps on the necessity of economic growth:

“We can’t generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control.”

* “Developing” Nations: On February 17, 2009, upon officially opening the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 25^th Session of the Governing Council/ Global Ministerial Environment Forum, at the United Nations Offices, in Gigiri, Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki, of Kenya, announced:

“Environmental degradation continues to undermine the prospects of fighting poverty, and the realization of [both] high economic growth and sustainable development, particularly in many developing countries.”

* The United Nations: Also on February 17, 2009, at the same United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) meeting, the UNEP’s “Green Economy Initiative” (founded in October 2008), presented its first report, A global green new deal. The Report was written by Edward Barbier, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, in consultation with 25 United Nations bodies, as well as other organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Barbier proposes that one third of the 2.3 trillion dollars-worth of planned national stimulus packages, be invested in “greening” the world economy. This translates to 750 billion dollars-worth of “green” investments, or about one per cent of the current gross global product (GGP). This “Green New Deal” would “power” the global economy out of recession.

The Report suggests that the one per cent apply to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the world’s “developed” economies, mostly represented by the “Group of 20 Nations” (G-20, the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors).

Note: “G-20,” which describes itself as having “systemic significance for the international financial system,” is composed of the European Union and 19 of the world’s 25 largest economies (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. Iran, Taiwan and Thailand are notably not included).

The Group’s meetings are attended by representatives of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Monetary and Financial Committee, and the Development Committee of the World Bank and IMF. The next meeting is scheduled for April 2009.

A global green new deal calls for investments which will “stimulate ‘clean’ technological innovations,” and “reduce the degradation of multi-trillion dollar ecosystems, and their goods and services.” It also calls for “innovative market mechanisms” and “fiscal policies” which include carbon pricing – either by means of taxes or cap-and-trade schemes. (Carbon pricing is supported by some environmental groups, notably, the Environmental Defense Fund).

Not one government in the world expresses wanting to contract its economy so as to alleviate the strain on the Earth’s ecosystems. All assume the solution to lie within the capitalist system.

[P. 176. Obama 2009a, p. 1. Obama 2009b. Democracy Now! 2009a, p. 4. Foster 2002, p. 19. Kibaki 2009, p. 1. United Nations/United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2008, p. 1. United Nations/United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2009a, p. 1. United Nations/United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2009b, p. 1. Wikipedia “G-20 major Economies” 2009, pp. 1-3].

CAPITALISM

Conditions of Production: A society based on the endless expansion which capitalism requires, must inevitably collapse its natural base. Infinite expansion within a finite environment is a contradiction in terms. World control by capital is the latest, logical result of an ancient lesion between humanity and nature. From being a creature of nature, we have become the puppet of capital (pp. 5, 7 and 14. Foster 2002, p. 10).

Humans are natural creatures who transform nature. Our “human nature” is to be both part of the whole of nature, and also distinguished from nature by what we do to it. The boundary between us and nature is where production occurs. Production, that is, the transformation of nature, is our defining species-specific activity. Its outcome is our economy, our polity, our culture, our religion, and our attitude toward our bodies.

As well as being a crisis of alienation of humans from nature, the ecological crisis, therefore, is also one of the conditions of production. These conditions include natural resources, and the labor-power which, armed with technologies, extracts these resources, using them to produce commodities (pp. 14-15. Foster 2002, p. 5).

The present stage of history is characterized by forces which systematically exceed the buffering capacity of nature with respect to human production, thereby setting into motion an unpredictable, interacting and expanding set of eco-systemic breakdowns.

Humanity is not only the perpetrator of the crisis. It is also its victim. Among the signs of our victimization is our incapacity to contend with the crisis, or even become conscious of it (p. 23. See the present document under “Capitalism,” “Humanity – Perpetrator and Victim”).

Characteristics of Capital: The established view is that capital is a rational factor of investment, a way to use money fruitfully by bringing together the various features of economic activity. Capital indeed has this rational function. However, the mode of operation of capital far surpasses this benign characteristic.

Capital is also a gigantic force field of profit-seeking which drives society, polarizing every event within its range of influence – even as it continually seeks to expand that range.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) described capital as a “werewolf,” a “vampire” which ravenously consumes and mutilates the laborer.

Capital consumes and mutilates nature, just as it does the laborer. Set against the get-rich-quick imperatives of capital accumulation, the biosphere scarcely weighs in the balance. Used to organize social production, capital is inherently anti-ecological. It reduces the earth to a repository of resources. It destroys the eco-sphere so that accumulation can proceed.

Capital:

1. Degrades the conditions of its own production.

2. Must expand without end in order to exist.

Canadian, independent filmmaker Paul Grignon, notes in his documentary, “Money as Debt” (2006):

“Perpetual growth of the real economy requires perpetually escalating use of real world resources and energy. More and more stuff has to go from natural resource to garbage every year, forever, just to keep the system from collapsing” (Grignon 2006).

3. Widens the disparity between rich and poor. Capital eventually produces a global society which is divided and chaotic, unable to address the ecological crisis.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the increasing disparity between rich and poor. Table 1 does this for the United States, in terms of income. Table 2 does it for three African countries, in terms of life expectancy. In both cases, the gap is widening. Capitalism needs poor, easily exploitable populations, both intra-nationally and inter-nationally.

(Pp. 35, 37-38, 47, 53, 145 and 159. Foster 2002, pp. 21-22. Grignon 2006. See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “’Green Capitalism’ – Capitalism but with Modifications,” Number 1, “Ecological Economics”).

Table 1: Increase in Wage and Salary Income, by Income, United States, 1972-2001^(a)

Income Category Approximate Corresponding Income^(b) (Percentile) (Dollars)	Increase in Wage and Salary Income 1972-2001 (Percent) (Percent per year)
90 -	34 1.2
99 400,000	87 3.0
99.9 1,700,000	181 6.3
99.99 6,000,000	497 17.1

^(a) Dew-Becker and Gordon 2006, cited in Krugman 2006, and reprinted both in ZFacts undated, p. 1 and Gordon’s Notes 2006, p. 1.

^(b) For the year 2006.

Table 2: Life Expectancy at Birth, by Gender, selected Countries, 1970-2005^(a)

Year	United States (Population, 2009, 307 million) Life Expectancy (years) All [Female/Male]	Democratic Republic of the Congo (Population, 2009, 69 million) Life Expectancy (years) All [Female/Male]	Zambia (Population, 2009, 12 million) Life Expectancy (years) All [Female/Male]	Zimbabwe (Population, 2009, 11 million) Life Expectancy (years) All [Female/Male]
1970	71 [75/67]	45 -	46 -	50 -
1970-1975	72 -	46 -	47 -	56 -

1997	77 [80/73]	51 [52/49]	40 [41/40]	44 [45/44]
2002	77 [80/74]	41 [42/40]	33 [33/33]	34 [34/34]
2005	78 [80/75]	46 [47/44]	41 [41/40]	41 [40/41]
Differential with the U.S.: 1970 2005	- -	71-45 = 26 78-46 = 32	71-46 = 25 78-41 = 37	71-50 = 21 78-41 = 37

^(a)For Populations: United States Bureau of the Census 2009, pp. 1-4.

For Life Expectancies: United States Bureau of the Census 2008, pp. 1 and 3. United Nations Development Report 1999, pp. 134-137, 138-141 and 168-171. United Nations Development Report 2001, pp. 166-169. United Nations Development Report 2004, pp. 139-142 and 217-220. United Nations Development Report 2007/2008, pp. 1-6.

Humanity – Perpetrator and Victim: The relationship of capital to society is similar to that of a cancer-causing virus to a human body. The virus invades the body, uses the resources of the body to grow, and grows to such an extent that it eventually destroys its host. Similarly, the profit-making force-field of capital invades a human society, obliges its people to play by the rule of profit-making, and is now on track to destroy its host. Everyone in the society must play the game.

It is people in search of a profit who violate the integrity of the ecosystems – to their own detriment, because they depend upon these to live. People are the puppets of capital. It is a humanity ruled by capital which destroys ecosystems.

The Faustian bargain between people and capital came about when people discovered that wealth could be made by making money. If making things helped money accumulation, then things were useful too. The goal became money. Capitalist production is for profit, not for use.

The restless dynamism which profitability enforces, is celebrated by capitalists. They see it as spurring resourcefulness and resilience, as well as driving efficiency, innovation, and the opening of new markets.

But the compulsion to accumulate money also gives rise to an addiction to commodities, and puts us on a treadmill to oblivion.

The evil of addiction to commodities leads to:

1. Waste and pollution.

2. A society which is unable to comprehend, much less resist the ecological crisis.

The present ecological crisis is not due to a fixed “human nature,” modernity, industrialism, or even economic development. More fundamentally, it is due to a societal organization which is opposed to a sustainable relationship with nature. The capitalist system – in which an inherently expansionist logic makes the accumulation of wealth in the form of capital the supreme goal of society – refuses to recognize the total dependence of humans on nature.

Neo-classical (Orthodox) Economics defines itself as a science which will make possible the efficient utilization of scarce goods. But the goods with which it is concerned are conceived of narrowly as market commodities. Ecological scarcities and irreversible degradation are beyond its purview, which, in line with the capitalist system in which it is embedded and which it is designed to defend, seldom takes account of what it calls “external” or “social” costs.

An ever-growing ecological crisis is a certainty as long as capital rules, no matter the measures taken to tidy up one or another corner. Capital is the cause of the ecological crisis. It cannot begin to address the problem.

(Pp. 38-39 and 69. Foster 2002, pp. 7 and 9. See the present document under “Capitalism,” “Conditions of Production,” and under “Capitalism,” “Money Accumulation.” Also, see the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “Capitalism as is – without Modification,” Number 1, “Neo-classical Economics”).

Exchange Value: Capitalism is a regime in which commodities are produced for their exchange rather than their use value. If production is for profit, that is, for the expansion of the money value invested in the production of commodities, then prices must be kept as high as possible, and costs as low as possible. Cutting costs becomes a paramount concern of capitalists.

Expenses which are cut include:

1. The labor-power sold by workers for wages. The cost-cutting of labor is crucial because labor-power is at the heart of capitalist system. Capital originates in the exploitation of labor. It abstracts human transformative power into labor-power for sale on the market.

2. The cost of the commodities used in production. These include fuel, machinery, and building materials.

3. The “conditions of production.” These conditions include:

a. Publically-produced facilities, such as infrastructure.

b. The workers themselves.

c. Nature.

But commodified, nature cannot thrive. The laws of nature do not include monetization. They exist within the context of ecosystems whose internal relations – specific, intricate and fragile – are violated when they are converted to money. Made property, nature is a priori severed from its eco-systemic way of being.

In addition to severing the strands which interconnect ecosystems, capitalism devalues whatever remainder of nature is not profitable. Wastes, labeled “externalities,” accumulate, and “pollute” the ecosystems of the planet, eventually destabilizing them.

(Pp. 39-41, 51-52 and 134. See the present document under “Values and Politics,” “Types of Values”).

Money Accumulation: Capital is at its core quantitative. It imposes a regime of quantity upon society.

This quantitative search, however, is not static, never in equilibrium. Capital can never rest. Money made must be immediately re-invested, so it can grow even more. Every quantity of capital possessed by the capitalist, is interpreted by him/her as signifying a limit to be surpassed. The boundary becomes the site of new value, a new commodity, the potential for new capital formation. Past forms of wealth constantly become obsolete, as they are replaced by new forms, such as, for example, a trade in pollution credits, or the development of new antibiotics to treat the new diseases set in motion by ecological destabilization. Society is obsessed with change and acquisition – an obsession which leads to the devastation of ecosystems. The process is the same as that of a wool sweater infested with moths. Holes get larger and larger, until the sweater falls apart completely.

The regime of profitability imposed by capital is one of permanent instability and restlessness. The capitalist world is a colossal apparatus of production, distribution and sales, suffused with commodities.

(Pp. 22-23, 41-43 and 52. See the present document under “Capitalism,” “Humanity – Perpetrator and Victim”).

Globalization: The term “globalization” expresses the expansion, colonization, and penetration of capital into human life on a planetary scale.

The process of globalization is characterized by:

1. A growing importance of finance capital. This is capital in its money-form.

Carroll Quigley (1910-1977), then Professor of History at Georgetown University, in Tragedy and Hope – a history of the world in our time (1966), explains the power of financial capital:

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim – nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country, and the economy of the world as a whole.”

“This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world, acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

“The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks, which were themselves private corporations.”

“The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control, and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.”

2. A decrease in state power relative to the power of private capital. The power of the state is decreasing relative to that of large concentrations of capital which impose their will internationally.

3. The erosion of nature. For ecosystems, globalization can be visualized as a series of great waves, representing capital, battering against, and finally completely eroding ecological defenses. Global eco-destabilization is the companion of global accumulation.

4. A lessening of democracy. Popular will is disregarded, as large sums of capital are used to squeeze ever more profit out of the system.

(Pp. 72, 74, 81 and 89. Quigley 1966, quoted in Grignon 2006. Wikipedia “Carroll Quigley” 2009, pp. 1 and 4).

present-day ecological politics

The present environmental Movement: An environmental awareness has been present in all countries for at least 20-40 years.

1970: The first world “Earth Day” is decreed by the United Nations, henceforth to become an annual event for the re-dedication of humanity to the preservation of the environment (p. 1).

1972: A group, calling itself the “Club of Rome,” publishes The limits to growth (Meadows et al 1972).

1992: The first Earth Summit is held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, marking a turning point in the history of humanity. Faced with the reality of a planetary ecological crisis, the countries of the world join in declaring their support for “sustainable development” – that is, striking a balance between “development” as it is occurring, and the protection of the earth’s resources.

Yet, during these several decades, the thinking and proposals for solutions, have generally not challenged the capitalist system. The environmental degradation is much worse now than it was then. As it functions presently, therefore, the environmental movement can be said to be dramatically ineffective. What has happened? What have been the steps we have been told to take?

Most present-day approaches to the ecological crisis do not consider essential the replacement of the capitalistic system with a system grounded in the restoration of the means of production to freely associated producers (socialism). They vary widely, however, in the extent to which they present some challenge to the system.

Present-day ecological politics comprise the great range of views which exists regarding the environment – from the views of neo-classical economists, who do not challenge the system at all, to the views of the proponents of a community-based economy, who seek to make considerable modifications to the system. None of these views challenges the capitalist system per se. None considers even the possibility that capitalism may be the culprit for the ecological crisis – namely, that the economic system in which the ecological crisis is taking place could be at the origin of the crisis itself. Socialism is marginal in this regard. Only eco-socialism places the blame squarely on capitalism, pointing to its sine qua non exploitation of both people (labor), and nature.

Within present-day ecological politics, approaches can be conceptualized according to the extent of the challenge they present to the system (p. 1).

Capitalism as is – without Modification:

1. Neo-classical Economics: Neo-classical Economics (“Orthodox Economics,” “Establishment Economics,” “Bourgeois Economics,” “Neo-classical Environmental Economics”) represents intransigent capitalism. Capital accumulation, particularly at the core of the capitalist world system, has top priority. Neither the welfare of the majority of the world population, nor the ecological fate of the Earth – nor even the fate of individual capitalists themselves—can be allowed to stand in the way of this single-minded goal.

Lawrence Summers is an example of such a neo-classical economist. At present, Summers is Professor at Harvard University, and head of the White House National Economic Council (2009-). He is former Secretary of the Treasury (1999-2001, in the Clinton Administration), former president of Harvard University (2001-2006) and former Chief Economist at the World Bank (1991-1993).

In 1991, as chief economist of the World Bank, Summers sent his colleagues a memorandum which reflects the logic of capital accumulation espoused by neo-classical economists:

“Just between you an me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDC’s [Less Developed Countries]? . . .”

“A given amount of health-impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages . . .”

“Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted . . .”

“The concern over an agent that causes a one-in-a million change in the odds of prostate cancer, is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand . . .”

“While production is mobile, the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable . . .” (Emphasis in the original).

The memo forcefully brings to awareness that the law of exchange is anti-ecological. For neo-classical economists, nature is an abstraction, and Summers’ arguments seem rational. In the regime of finance, the logic of exporting toxic waste to poor countries, is (in Summers’ words) “impeccable.” Making more money is all that counts.

In 1992, writing in The Economist, Summers combined the idea of “natural capital” (a term popularized by Paul Hawken, which means nature capitalized), with the estimates of the economic costs of global warming, projected by Yale University neo-classical economist William ”Bill” Nordhaus [ideas which Nordhaus later expanded in Managing the global commons – the economics of climate change (1994)].

Positing that an increase in human capital fully compensates for a loss in “natural capital” (the “weak sustainability hypothesis”), Summers writes:

“The argument that a moral obligation to future generations demands special treatment of environmental investments, is fatuous.”

“We can help our descendants as much by improving infrastructure as by preserving rain forests . . . as much by enlarging our scientific knowledge as by reducing carbon dioxide in the air.”

As a neo-classical economist, Summers also interprets the word “sustainable,” in the phrase “sustainable development,” as referring to economic growth. It is economic growth that must be sustainable (not our footprint on nature). Summers blocks any environmental goal which could possibly interfere with economic interests.

Nothing in the history of capitalism suggests that the system is up to the task of reversing the present dire ecological trends. Radical change is called for, and yet, little is accomplished. Remaining unchallenged, the system continues on its destructive course, and the ecological crisis intensifies.

It is impossible to prevent the world’s environmental crisis from getting progressively worse, unless root problems of production, distribution, technology, and growth are seen for what they are on a global scale. And from this perspective, capitalism reveals itself to be unsustainable – ecologically, economically, politically, and morally.

(Pp. 82, 84 and 86; Summers 1991, quoted p. 82. Foster 2002, pp. 60-65, 67 and 69; Quote pp. 60-61. Summers 1992, quoted in Foster 2002, pp. 39, 43 and 63. Also numerous sources, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 71-72. Wikipedia “Lawrence Summers” 2009, p. 1. Wikipedia “William Nordhaus” 2009, p. 1).

(See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “‘Green Capitalism’ – Capitalism but with Modifications,” Number 1, “Ecological Economics,” “A neo-classical Variation of Ecological Economics.” Also, see the present document under “Capitalism,” “Humanity – Perpetrator and Victim”).

Albert “Al” Gore is another example of a neo-classical economist. Some of the milestones in Gore’s career include:

1993-2001: Vice-president of the United States.

2004: Co-founding the Generation Investment Management, in order to:

“[create] environment-friendly portfolios . . . [and] manage assets of institutional investors, such as pension funds, foundations and endowments, as well as those of ‘high net worth individuals.’”

2006: ~ Founding the Alliance for Climate Protection to:

“motivate people to take action[on the climate crisis].

~ Starring in An inconvenient Truth – an Academy Award-

winning documentary film on global warming.

2007: Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

2008: Releasing an advertisement (through the We Campaign, a project of the Alliance for Climate Protection) demanding American leaders to give the American people, within ten years,

“truly clean energy.”

2009: Publishing An inconvenient truth – the planetary emergency of global warming and what we can do about it.

Gore is a member of the Boards of Directors of Apple, Inc., and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. He is partner in the venture capital firm, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield, and Byers. He is visiting professor at Middle Tennessee State University.

Gore is representative of an approach which evidences concern over nature but views capitalism as able to rise to the challenge. Working within the system is sufficient to solve the crisis. No change, modification, re-organization, or re-structuring need be made.

The “system” within which one works, is represented by the various arms of the state (such as regulatory agencies and the judiciary), non-governmental organization (NGO’s), and representatives of capital.

Proponents aim for more “social responsibility.” Thus, on the occasion of the Academy Award ceremony for “An inconvenient Truth,” Gore called on all of us to act responsibly – thus placing the issue within the framework of individual ethics, not within the framework of the social system which controls these ethics:

“My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue. It’s a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That’s a renewable resource. Let’s renew it!”

During his tenure as vice-president, Gore did not resist the demands of big business. He fought neither against trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, 1992), nor the emergence of the World Trade Organization (WTO, 1995). The Clinton/Gore Justice Department prosecuted effectively 30 percent fewer environmental crimes than did the Justice Department of the George H. W. Bush Administration which preceded it. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reached lows in terms of both competency and morale.

In April 1993, President Bill Clinton (president 1993-2001) declared that by means of an array of voluntary measures, the United States would achieve, by the year 2000, the stabilization of its greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels. But by 1999, the country’s fossil fuel-generated carbon dioxide emissions (which account for 82 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions), had increased by 13 percent over 1990 levels (from 1.355 billion to 1.520 billion metric tons of carbon equivalents). This was the highest carbon dioxide emissions growth rate for any nation in history. In 1999, U.S. fossil fuel-generated emissions were 5.6 metric tons of carbon equivalents per person, compared to a world average 1.0 ton per person.

Also working within the present economic system, James Hansen, Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Sciences Division, Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y., implies that, from their vantage point beyond nature, humans should decide the temperature they wish the globe be, when he entitles his October 2008 paper:

“Target atmospheric Carbon dioxide – Where should Humanity aim?”

Working within the system ignores the fact that everything in capitalist society is conditioned by capital, from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the raising of children. All our endeavors are within the force-field of an emphasis on money and profit, rather than people and nature.

(Pp. 164-167 and 259. Foster 2002, pp. 17-18, 45, 55-56 and 92. Wikipedia “Al Gore” 2009, pp. 1, 14-15, 17 and 27-28. Wikipedia “Alliance for Climate Protection” 2009, p. 1. Wikipedia “We Campaign” 2009, p. 1. Hansen 2008, p. 1).

(See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “Capitalism as is – without Modification,” Number 2, “Individual Ethics.” Also, see the present document under “The Planetary Crisis,” “The Destruction of the global Ecology”).

2. Individual Ethics: Worldwide, mainstream natural and physical scientists – precisely those who have done so much to alert us to the dangers facing humanity and the planet – often present a perspective which reduces the ecological crisis to questions of individual and collective will. (Rarely also to rational choice in the market place).

An example is the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” initiated by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and signed, in 1992, by 1,575 of the world’s most distinguished scientists, including more than half of all living scientists awarded the Nobel Prize.

The conclusion is unmistakably clear:

“We, the undersigned, senior members of the world’s scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.”

Yet the statement only calls for more careful management – admonitions to clean up our act. We must:

a. Bring environmentally damaging activities under control. For example, move away from fossil fuels, halt deforestation, halt the loss of agricultural land, and halt the loss of species (plants and animals, terrestrial and marine).

b. Manage resources, such as energy and water, more efficiently.

c. Stabilize population.

d. Eliminate poverty.

e. Ensure sexual equality. Guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

Not a hint that the organization of a society as a whole might have anything to do with how the society behaves toward its natural environment.

In 1974, German author, poet, translator and editor Hans Magnus Enzenberger saw this lack in the thinking of mainstream environmentalists:

“[Their thinking often smacks of a preacher’s sermon in which] the horror of the predicted catastrophe contrasts sharply with the mildness of the admonition with which we are allowed to escape.”

Indeed, it is only when an understanding of capital accumulation accompanies knowledge of ecological trends, that the full extent of our global ecological crisis can be comprehended. Capitalism can never stand still. This is what the Union of Concerned Scientists fails to take into account. If the investment frontier does not expand, and, therefore, profits do not increase, the circulation of capital is interrupted, and capitalism ceases to function. Stationary capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

Conservative economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) described this phenomenon, in 1951:

“Capitalism is a process. Stationary capitalism would be a contradictio in adjecto.”

(Foster 2002, pp. 73-74 and 80. Union of Concerned Scientists 1992, pp. 1-2; also quoted in Foster 2002, pp. 73 and 77. Enzenberger 1974, quoted in Foster 2002, pp. 74 and 77. Wikipedia “Hans Magnus Enzenberger” 2009, p. 1. Schumpeter 1951, quoted in Foster 2002, pp. 36, 42, 74 and 77. Wikipedia “Joseph Schumpeter” 2009, p. 1).

(See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “‘Green Capitalism’ – Capitalism but with Modifications,” Number 1, “Ecological Economics,” ”A neo-classical Variation of Ecological Economics”).

(Contradictio in adjecto: Latin for a contradiction in itself, a contradiction in terms. The characteristic denoted by the adjective stands in contrast to the meaning of the noun. An oxymoron).

3. Waiting for Technology: With a boost from the propaganda machine, the conflict between humanity and nature can be made to seem eminently resolvable through technology.

Neo-classical economist William “Bill” Nordhaus and his co-author, Joseph Boyer, both at Yale University, in Warming the world – economic modeling of global warming (2000), recommend research into “costless” (to private industry) technology, such as:

“geo-engineering [which would] include injecting particles into the atmosphere to increase the back-scattering of sunlight, and stimulating absorption of carbon in the oceans.”

At present, carbon capture and sequestration is a popular suggestion to allow the carbon-based economy to continue unchanged, while “caring” for the environment (at least the atmosphere).

But waiting for technology to solve the ecological crisis is like waiting for Godot, in the 1952 play, by Anglo-French playwright Samuel Beckett (1906-1989), which has that title. The technology of a society is grounded in its social relations. The technology of a capitalist society is geared toward profit-making, not taking care of life.

Reliance on technology to solve the ecological crisis, results from conceptualizing technology as something applied to, rather than being an integral part of society. Technology is not a collection of techniques and tools. It is a pattern of social relations which center on the extension of the body as an instrument to transform nature. It is socially determined, an expression of a given mode of social organization.

Capitalism uses technology to cheapen the cost of labor.

(Pp. 109, 123 and 169-173. Foster 2002, p. 101. Nordhaus and Boyer 2000, cited in Foster 2002, p. 20).

(See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “Capitalism as is – without Modification,” “Neo-classical Economics”). Also, see the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “‘Green Capitalism’ – Capitalism but with Modifications,” Number 1, “Ecological Economics”).

4. Voluntarism: Volunteers work in isolation. Their actions are based on good intentions, but are not connected to any social movement which specifically targets the ecological crisis. Volunteer actions are usually taken to solve a specific manifestation of the crisis, and are often based primarily on moral or psychological grounds. Examples include the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs, or the lowering of the temperature on one’s thermostat.

Market forces are used to make voluntarism serve the interest of capital. By means of incentives and recycling laws, citizens are induced to provide free labor to the large and growing industries which profit from “waste management.” Volunteering is made ancillary to the capitalization of nature (pp. 167-168).

“Green Capitalism” – Capitalism but with Modifications: “Green Capitalism” (“Green Economics”) comprises those approaches which challenge the present system, seeking to re-structure it to be more ecologically-friendly. Capitalism can solve the ecological crisis, but only with modifications.

“Green Capitalism” consists of a wide variety of views, all based on the premise that a modified capitalism will let nature heal. Each view advocates different modifications.

The false Premise of “Green Capitalism”: Attempts to let nature’s wounds heal by means of “Green Capitalism,” are based on the premise that capitalism can be reformed. These attempts are headed for failure, because it is the core of capitalism which is anti-ecological. The raison d’être of capitalism is the accumulation of money, not the taking care of life, whether human or environmental.

The force field of capital is a demand for the growth of profits across the entire surface of society, and profitability necessitates considering money, not nature, as the embodiment of value. If the main institutions of capital are allowed to set the basic terms of the market, they will force the separation of producers (labor) from the means of production – and the exploitation of both labor and nature.

As a system, capitalism is able to tolerate any number of improvements and rationalizations, so long as its basic expansion is secured. But it is precisely this expansion which is destroying ecologies.

“Green Capitalism” confuses parts with the whole. Nature will be allowed to heal only if the whole of the capitalistic system is eliminated.

Any tolerance espoused by “Green Capitalism,” directed to preserving a “diversity” which gives a substantial role to capitalist firms, must be rejected. All forms of capital (including “natural capital”) will be enmeshed quickly into the flood-tide of money accumulation. The small units must be socialist in orientation and intention – that is, grounded in a freely associated labor, free from exploitation. Only in this situation, will the drive to accumulate have no reason to arise. Accumulation of money is not an innate impulse of human nature. Its history is only as old as the coming to power of capital.

False reconciliation is not the path out of a world as unjust as this one. The demand for justice is the pivot about which both labor will be emancipated (cease to be treated as a commodity), and the ecological crisis be overcome (pp. 116 and 180-184 and 186-187).

“Green Capitalism” includes the following viewpoints:

1. Ecological Economics: “Ecological Economics” (“Environmental Economics”) is the ecological wing of mainstream classical economics.

Romanian ecological economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994), in The entropy law and the economic process (1971), was among the first to challenge classical economics for its mechanistic view of human behavior:

“The fiction of homo oeconomicus . . . strips man’s behavior of every cultural propensity . . .”

Georgescu-Roegen pointed out that classical economics failed to incorporate into its understanding of the processes of production and reproduction, a phenomenon as basic as entropy.

Proponents of Ecological Economics are not interested in social transformation. They view the present capitalist system as able to absorb the crisis (“adapt”). However, they do challenge the system to the extent that they call for a set of measures which would make it more ecologically-friendly. Their call is for tangible modifications, not just the return in time advocated by Neo-Smithians.

For ecological economists, ecological degradation is evidence of imperfections in the workings of the market system – a market failure. Ecological assets must be transformed into commodities and integrated into the market system where they will be protected. Costs, at present external to the market, such as clear air, must be internalized by the market. The earth must be brought within the balance sheet.

In order to do this, ecological economists declare that nature is “natural capital,” and the environment, a set of specific “goods and services.”

“Natural Capital”: Natural capital (a concept popularized by green entrepreneur Paul Hawken) is assumed to consist of all the various components of nature (forests, fish stocks, petroleum reserves etc . . . ). It comprises all of nature – the whole of the planet. It is nature conceived in the image of capital.

“Goods and Services”: Goods and services are assumed to consist of the specific goods and services which the environment provides for us (the timber available in a forest, the water quality of a river, a species in a wildlife reserve, the maintenance of a certain global temperature).

These “goods and services” are given an imputed price, and then various market mechanisms and policy instruments devised, so as to obtain a pre-determined level of environmental protection. If the market already exists, prices may be changed. If not, a new market is created.

Thus, the recommended modifications to the system which ecological economists propose, include:

a. The Manipulation of present Markets: An increase in the cost of inflicting environmental damage, by means of ecological tariffs, “natural capital” depletion taxes, and penalties against polluters. An increase in the benefits of environmental improvements by means of ecological subsidies.

b. The Creation of New Markets: By means of “incentive-based” regulations, the creation by the state of new markets, devised to operate independently from the state. Examples include tradable emission credits, exclusive economic zones in coastal waters, and the charging of entrance fees to parks.

Ecological Economics quantifies nature into a system of money, and thus commodifies nature in all aspects. While rationally, the environment may be considered a condition of production for the economy, it cannot nor should it, for ethical reasons, be fully incorporated into the circular flow of a commodity economy. Any attempt to allow the “tyranny of the bottom line” to guide our relation to nature in its entirety, is a recipe for ecological disaster.

Ecological Economics is based on three interwoven contradictions:

a. It replaces intrinsic value with exchange value (market price). All qualitative values are dissolved into a quantitative one. Money is the highest of all values.

b. It reduces the relationship of humans with nature to individual, possessive terms. It alienates society from nature, instituting a one-sided, egoistic relationship to it.

c. It ignores the fact that the capitalist economy accepts no barrier outside itself. Predictably, capitalism will seek to increase its sphere of influence without regard for the effect of its expansion on the biosphere. It will reduce nature to a mere cash nexus, and precisely not treat it accordance with ecological principles.

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)’s 2009 Report, A global green new deal, is an example of valuing nature in terms of money.

The Clean Development Mechanism of the United Nations’ “Kyoto Protocol” (1997), and the Emissions Trading Scheme of the European Union (2005), are examples of Ecological Economics put in action.

Another example of Ecological Economics is the “cap and trade” greenhouse gas emissions policy proposed to Congress, in February 2009, by President Barack Obama, for Fiscal Year 2010. Asserting “ownership” of the atmosphere over the United States, the government would auction a limited number of pollution permits to private companies.

On March 24, 2009, addressing a national audience, Obama explained:

“It starts pricing the pollution that is being sent into the atmosphere.”

A “stationary State”: A variation of classical economy was initiated by British economist John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who predicted that a capitalist economy would eventually settle, without social disruption, into a “stationary state,” in which there would be little or no growth in either population or output. An end to the class struggle and a more comfortable relationship with nature would ensue.

Today, University of Maryland ecological economist Herman Daly, formerly with the World Bank (1988-1994), and student of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994), follows the thought of John Stuart Mill. In Steady-state economics (1977), For the common good (1989, written with theologian John Cobb), and Beyond growth (1996), Daly argues for a steady-state market economy as the answer to the world’s ecological problems.

Daly’s call for limits to growth has sometimes been couched in strong language:

“But at a deeper level of our being, we find it hard to suppress the cry of anguish, the scream of horror – the wild words required to express wild realities. We, human beings, are being led to a dead end – all to literally. We are living by an ideology of death, and accordingly, we are destroying our own humanity, and killing the planet (Emphasis in the original. Pp. 186, 301 and 311. Quote p. 301, from Daly and Cobb 1989, p. 21).

But Daly’s critique of capital is partial. Although he has a keen awareness of the de-humanization of labor which is endemic to the capitalist system, Daly does not cross the bridge which then faces him.

For instance, knowing that, for the purposes of competitiveness, capital has to treat labor as a commodity whose cost can be ruthlessly driven down (or shifted to the cheaper overseas sources provided by globalization), he and Cobb would:

“Insist that [trade policy] be accompanied by greatly increased competitiveness among American producers.”

And, treating the “workforce” as though it were not a main portion of the “general public,” Daly and Cobb do:

“not want to see the renewal of labor militancy directed toward increasing its share of the pie [in comparison to] capital and the general public” (pp. 187, 301 and 311. Quotes p. 187, from Daly and Cobb 1989, p. 370).

A neo-classical Variation of Ecological Economics: Green entrepreneur Paul Hawken proposes to “de-materialize” the economy, by which he means reducing both raw material throughput, and energy per output, mainly through greater efficiency and more recycling. The concern is, definitely, the ecology.

However, Hawken also subscribes to much of Neo-classical Economics:

* In The ecology of commerce (1993), Hawken proposes a new environmental ethic for businesses and corporations:

“The ultimate purpose of business is not, or should not be, simply to make money. Nor is it merely a system of making and selling things. The promise of business is to increase the general well being of humankind, through service, creative invention and an ethical philosophy.”

By arguing as if the treadmill of production were not built into our society, Hawken aligns himself with Neo-classical Economics (See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “Capital as is – without Modification,” Number 2, “Individual Ethics”).

* In a 1997 article entitled, “Natural Capitalism,” Hawken declares that technological wonders (a 200-miles-per-gallon car, and the “magic carpet” of recycling) will solve the ecological problem.

By arguing as if technological change were not subordinated to market imperatives, Hawken again aligns himself with Neo-classical Economics (See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “Capital as is – without Modification,” Number 3, “Waiting for Technology”).

(Pp. 174-177, 185-187, 301 and 311. Foster 2002, pp. 26-38 and 48. Georgescu-Roegen, quoted in Foster 2002, p. 54. John Stuart Mill and Herman Daly, cited in Foster 2002, pp. 77 and 78; and also in Hall 2008b, p. 25, and Hall 2008c, p. 19. Paul Hawken, cited in Cox 2008, p. 162, summarized in Hall 2008c, p. 24; and also in Foster 2002, pp. 34, 37 and 48; quote p. 48. Wikipedia “Herman Daly” 2009, pp. 1-2. Obama 2009c, quoted in PetroleumWorld 2009, p. 2. American Free Press 2009, p. 1. American Institute for Economic Research 2009, p. 1).

(For the UN/UNEP, A global green new deal, see the present document under “The Planetary Crisis,” “Political Responses, “The United Nations.” For the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism and the European Union Emission Trading Scheme, see Cox 2008, summarized in Hall 2008c, pp. 48-50).

(See the present document under “The Planetary Crisis,” “Political Responses,” “Industrialized Nations.” Also, see the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “’Green Capitalism’ – Capitalism but with Modifications,” Number 2, “Neo-Smithian Economics”. Also, see the present document under “The Future,” “Another World is possible,” “The Commons”).

2. Neo-Smithian Economics: Neo-Smithians advocate a return to the small – a return achieved principally by turning the clock back. Capitalism remains intact, only the concentrations of capital are smaller – like they used to be. The aim is a return to the conditions described by Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790) – a golden age when capitals were small, and greedy corporations did not exist (and hence, could not destroy ecosystems).

The modification to the present capitalist system for which Neo-Smithians advocate, is a reduction in the size of economic units, and a restoration of small, independent capitals to their previous pre-eminence.

Author David Korten, is the leading exponent of this view. Korten’s best known books include When corporations rule the world (1995), The great turning – from empire to earth community (2006), and Agenda for a new economy – from phantom wealth to real wealth (2009).

Korten does not offer a critique of capital, nor does he look into questions of class, gender, and other categories of domination. His reference to “natural capital” implies that nature has toiled to put the gift of capital into human hands, which then abused it through false science and materialism.

Korten does not see that even a small-sized capitalistic system is based on that most crucial of ecological insults – the exploitation of labor. Indeed, a golden age of small capitals before the advent of greedy corporations, is a wishful illusion.

(Pp. 177-178, 183 and 203. Wikipedia “David Korten” 2009, pp. 1-2. See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “‘Green Capitalism’ – Capitalism but with Modifications,” Number 3, “Community-based Economics”).

3. Community-based Economics: Proponents of community-based economics make up a majority of the “Green Capitalism” movement. They emphasize mutualism as a defense against the forces of modernity and gigantism. Generally hostile to socialism, they oppose public ownership of the means of production, advocating instead various types of economic systems.

Ernst Friedrich “Fritz” Schumacher (1911-1977) was one of the first to call for a return to the small. In such books as Small is beautiful – a study of economics as if people mattered (1973), and A guide for the perplexed (1977), Schumacher called for “Buddhist Economics,” a system based on the premise that good work is essential for proper human development. Schumacher proposed a cantonal structure for the economy, the reduced productivity per worker encouraging full employment, and thereby lessening the chances of a revolt of the unemployed.

A present strand of the return to community movement, the “Defenders of the Commons,” (often represented in The Ecologist) call for a return to small producers, as in the South or in indigenous communities.

Vandana Shiva, Founder and Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, New Delhi, India, is representative of the movement in general (as well as being a leader in the eco-feminist movement). Shiva calls for small-size, diverse, ecologically-sustainable, organic agriculture, accompanied by high levels of food sovereignty.

In Stolen harvest – the hijacking of the global food supply (2000), Shiva argues that diversity increases rather than decreases productivity:

“Industrial agriculture, based on a reductionist, fragmented, and competitive worldview, interprets partnerships, cooperation, and mutual help as competition. Instead of viewing cows and earthworms as our helpers in food production, it views them as making competing demands on food, and views the denial of their right to nutrition as a gain in human nutrition. Thus, in breeding, the yield of grain is increased at the cost of straw. Food for humans is increased at the cost of food for cows and earthworms. . . . but other species do not feed themselves at our cost; they feed us while they feed themselves.”

However, viewed against the reality of capital, Community-based Economics is headed for failure. All economic activity is both local and global. Even in the most localized of instances, the final, local act rests upon a deep and widespread foundation. Where does the water come from? Who contaminates the farm’s seeds with genetically-engineered material? Where do the purchased resources come from? How does the community defend itself from marauders?

Since the installment of an industrial chicken farm next to her model seed farm in Dehra Dun, Uttar Pradesh, India, at the foot of the Himalayas, the air on Vandana Shiva’s farm is so polluted with methane that:

“When the wind blows in our direction, you can’t sit outside.”

At issue is the relationship of parts (communities) to the whole (the whole human ecology). A pure community is a fantasy (pp. 178 and 182-183. Wikipedia “E. F. Schumacher” 2009, pp. 1-6. Shiva 2008. Shiva 2000, quote p. 118. Wikipedia “Vandana Shiva” 2009, pp. 1-5).

4. Cooperatives: Ownership by producers would seem to cut to the core of capitalist social relations, by replacing hierarchy and control from above with freely associated labor.

However, the principle of cooperation can be no more than partially realizable within cooperatives embedded in capitalist society. Today, a significant portion of the capitalist economy is already in cooperative hands – from farmer cooperatives to credit unions, to even some Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO’s). This has no more stopped the ecological crisis than leaded gasoline, recycled newspaper and other worthy palliatives.

The internal cooperation of freely associated labor is hemmed in and compromised by the force field of value-expansion embodied in the market.

As Karl Marx pointed out, cooperatives force their workers to become

“their own capitalists . . . by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labor [the standards of which are then set by the capitalist market].”

(Pp. 178-181, 200, 301 and 316. Quote p. 181, from Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. III (1894).

5. The Green Party of the United States: The Green Party of the United States has “ten key values”:

a. Grassroots Democracy: Increased public participation in government.

b. Social Justice and equal Opportunity: Confrontation of racism, class oppression, sexism, homophobia, ageism, and disability.

c. Ecological Wisdom: An agriculture which replenishes the soil. An energy-efficient economy. Respect for the integrity of natural systems.

d. Non-violence: Demilitarization, including the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, without naivety about other governments’ intentions, and with awareness of the need for self-defense and the defense of helpless others.

e. Decentralization: The re-structuring of social, political and economic institutions away from control by, and mostly for the benefit of the powerful few. Decision-making, as much as possible, at the individual and local level.

f. Community-based Economics and economic Justice: Jobs, meaningful, dignified work. A “living wage” reflecting the real value of the work. A decent standard of living of all people. Ecological balance.

g. Feminism and Gender Equity: Replacement of the cultural ethics of male domination in politics and economics by more cooperative ways of interacting and respect for differences of opinion and gender.

h. Respect for Diversity: The valuing of cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity.

i. Personal and global Responsibility: Improvement of one’s own personal well-being. Enhancement of ecological balance and social harmony. Joining others to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

j. Future Focus and Sustainability: The valuing of natural resources. Safe disposal of, or the “unmaking,” of all waste. The development of a sustainable economic system, not dependent on continual expansion for survival. Counterbalancing the drive for short-term profits by an economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies which are responsible toward future generations.

Except derivatively, none of these otherwise meritorious values, demands the emancipation of labor. In fact, most Greens would reject this demand in favor of a populist position. Capital remains in control.

In the United States, Greens are content to envision an ecologically sane future in which a suitably regulated capitalism, brought down to size and mixed with other forms, continues to regulate social production. They do not see the root of the problem in capital itself.

Only in Germany, under the leadership of Green Party co-founder and leader Petra Kelly (1947-1992), have ecological concerns been tied to:

“issues of economic justice – the exploitation of the poor by the rich.”

(Pp. xiv, 49, 201, 217 and 265-266. Green Party of the United States 2000, pp. 1-2. Petra Kelly: quote, Foster 2002, p. 49. Wikipedia “Petra Kelly” 2008, p. 1).

6. Economic Populism: Populists personify ordinary citizens on the one hand, and corporations on the other. “The People” become one who is victimized by a corporate other whose power is arbitrary and corrupt. The People (the hero-in-waiting) is bound to rise up and smite the villainous oppressor – or, at the very least, demand fairness.

Ralph Nader is a champion of populism. Nader is a four-time candidate for President of the United States (in 1996 and 2000, for the Green Party, and, in 2004 and 2008, as an Independent). He has long fought to redress the grievances of citizens and consumers victimized by corporate greed.

But “the People” of populism “does” not exist, and the idea fragments after its use as a rallying point. Not all people are oppressed since the oppressors are human beings too. Nor do the oppressed exist as a homogeneous mass, because oppression itself has constructed significant lines of division. Populism can be no more than a point of entry into the building of a movement which addresses the structures of a fragmented society (pp. xiv and 202. Wikipedia “Ralph Nader” 2009, p. 1).

7. “Progressivism”: Today’s “progressivism” is a populist position because the term lacks a definition of the direction of the assumed “progress.”

Democracy means the mobilization of the power of our species, and for this, the freeing of labor is indispensible. This demand, however, is absent from today’s political landscape, except for stunted derivatives, such as the vague identification of people of good will as “progressives.” But progress also includes the elimination of tradition, and, therefore, the elimination of the integrity of the commons.

Like capitalism, progressivism is indifferent to, and even contemptuous of the past. But, to visualize what is “not yet,” we must understand, continually rediscover, and restore dignity to what “has been.” For humans, nature and the past are different aspects of their common heritage. They are what is prior to the production which defines the present moment.

Progressives settle for the eco-destructive system in which they find themselves, feeling virtuous for placing checks on corporate power, but then, all too often, standing around until again startled into action by the next head of the hydra (pp. 200-202 and 245-246).

Note: In Greek mythology, Hydra is a water serpent with multiple heads (a serpent – at the level of the ground, hence, a very low level of consciousness). When cut off, each head was replaced by two others.

Hydra is the son of Typhon, the youngest son of Gaea, goddess earth. Hydra is, therefore, one of the derivatives of the Great Mother, against whom the ego fought to liberate itself. The “hero myth,” which describes this stage in the development of consciousness, arose around 2,500 years ago, with the emergence of the “Low Egoic” stage.

Hercules, the most popular of all Greek heroes, famous for his extraordinary strength and courage, and worshiped as a god, kills Hydra. Hercules is the son of Zeus (the representation of the ego), and is, therefore, a derivative of the newly-emerging ego.

After Hercules triumphs over Hydra, Zeus himself triumphs over Typhon, and the reign of the ego (the patriarchal gods) is now secure. See the present document under “The Evolution of human Consciousness, entry 2,500 Years ago, “The ‘Low Egoic’ Stage of Consciousness.”

In common parlance, a hydra is a multifarious evil, not to be overcome by a single effort. It is also any of numerous small tubular freshwater hydrozoan polyps having at one end of their body, a mouth surrounded by tentacles.

ecological PHILOSOPHIES

Philosophical Underpinnings of present-day ecological Politics: “Green Capitalism” is based on the orientation and concepts of “eco-philosophies.”

Eco-philosophies combine:

* An understanding of humanity’s relationship to nature.

* An understanding of the dynamics of the ecological crisis.

* Guidelines for re-building society in a eco-centric direction.

Eco-philosophies include:

1. Deep Ecology: Founder of Deep Ecology, Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess (1912-2009), was a lead critic of capitalism, and a proponent of a socialist path to surpass it. Naess taught that every being, whether human, animal or vegetable, has an equal right to live and realize his/her ecological Self as part of the whole eco-sphere. If one does not know how the outcomes of one’s actions will affect other beings, one should not act.

In the view of Deep Ecologists, we should view human beings as no more important – even in our eyes – than any other species.

The philosophy tends to deny humanity’s creative potential and its power to transform nature, sometimes even giving the impression of wanting humans to go back to a Paleolithic existence in the wilderness. But humans are part of nature, and humanity’s creative potential is part of nature.

Deep ecology places emphasis on preservation of the wild. Unfortunately, it has happened frequently that the United States Department of State and the World Bank have endorsed the preservation of wild areas, only to co-opt the purpose of this preservation, and use the “added value” of these areas for eco-tourism – and the making of profits.

Also, some of the measures for which Deep Ecology has successfully advocated, have displaced indigenous people (pp. 188-190. Foster 2002, p. 72. Wikipedia “Arne Naess” 2009, pp. 1-3).

2. Bio-regionalism: Bio-regionalism is an ecological rendition of the contemporary movement to divide nation-states into smaller units. Proponents regard nationhood as a place shared by a people – a concrete ecological part of the earth. Independent scholar, author and bio-regionalist leader Kirkpatrick Sale posits a regime of self-sufficiency for a bio-region.

The most important problems with the idea of bioregions, include:

a. Land remaining a commodity. This means that, like all commodities, land can be hoarded, rented out, owned by absentees, concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and generally exploited.

b. The definition of an “area.”

c. The interdependence of communities in today’s world.

d. The predictable dependence of communities on external sites for resources (pp. 191-194. Wikipedia “Kirkpatrick Sale” 2009, p. 1).

3. Eco-feminism: Eco-feminism is based on the wish to eliminate the “gendered bifurcation of nature” which humans have made, from the time when men initially controlled women’s bodies, to men’s present-day control of labor in general. The bifurcation is at the root of patriarchy and class. Men reduce women, labor and nature to inert resources. Money becomes the hieroglyph for the phallus, the signifier of power, and the laurel of competition. Capitalist domination always entails the domination of women, labor and nature.

Vandana Shiva, Founder and Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, New Delhi, India, is a leader of the eco-feminist movement, as she is also of the Community-based Economics movement.

In Earth democracy – justice, sustainability, and peace (2005), Shiva argues against the Cartesian conception of freedom and independence:

“[It] has its roots in capitalist patriarchy, and allows powerful men owning capital and property, while dependent on women, farmers, workers, and other cultures and species, to pretend that they are independent.”

Marilyn Waring, Professor of Public Policy at the Institute of Public Policy, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, is also a leader of the movement. A member of the (conservative) National Party, Waring is a former representative in the New Zealand Parliament (1975-1984).

Waring campaigns for “women’s human rights,” placing the issue in the context of economics:

“[Classical] Economics is a tool of people in power . . . It is a tool of those who want to exploit . . . [providing them with] a justification. It does not allow for the introduction of values that do not find their way into a mathematical formula.”

“[The United Nations System of National Accounts (mandated for all countries, in 1953)] counts oil spills and wars as contributors to economic growth, while child-rearing and house-keeping are deemed valueless.”

Waring’s book, Counting for nothing – what men value and what women are worth (1977) has been very influential, as also has been the film about her, “Who’s counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and global Economics.”

A group of eco-feminists, the “Essentialists,” base their position on aspects of both Deep Ecology and Bioregionalism. Giving primacy to the closeness of women with nature, they seek an unmediated relationship with nature – the “eternal feminine,” an archetypal maternal position, close to the earth, the source of goddess-based spiritualities, and even feminist separatism.

These eco-feminists do not ask why the holding and provisioning functions were assigned to women, and, therefore, debased. They are, therefore, unable to use the issue of the demeaning of labor to transform the present patriarchal, capitalist society. Essentialist eco-feminists remain essentially bourgeois in orientation.

Eco-feminism has not achieved the status of a coherent social movement.

(Pp. 194-195 and 239. Shiva 2005, quote p. 113. Waring 1995 (includes first quote). Waring 1999, summarized in Hall 2003c. Wikipedia “Marilyn Waring” 2009, pp. 1-3; second quote p. 2).

(See the present document, under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “‘Green Capitalism’ – Capitalism but with Modifications,” Number 3, “Community-based Economics.” Also, see the present document under “My Conclusions,” “The ‘Gendered Bifurcation of Nature’”).

4. Social Ecology: The central insight of Social Ecology is that ecological problems are, in fact, social problems. More specifically, ecological problems are the outcome of hierarchies. In its defense of community and attack on state power, Social Ecology continues the anarchist project.

Social Ecology is rooted in the ideas of Murray Bookchin (1921-2006) who taught that political and social systems characterized by hierarchies, are at the root of present ecological problems. The domination of nature is a product of domination within society, which under capitalism, reaches crisis proportions.

The absolute condemnation of any human relationship in which one person has authority over another, is unfounded. There are rational forms of authority, such as the parent-child and the teacher-student relationships. Within a hierarchy, what needs to be overthrown is domination – the expropriation of human power for the purposes of self-aggrandizement, and the consequent alienation of human creative power.

A strand of the Social Ecology movement emphasizes direct action, leaving untouched the question of building an ecological society beyond capital.

As a whole, social ecologists reject socialist and Marxian ways of approaching the ecological crisis. Unlike eco-socialists, they do not analyze capitalism to its root in the domination and exploitation of labor, and, therefore, do not give the emancipation of labor central importance. In addition, they do not place the necessity for a humanity which has integrity, that is, a humanity unimpaired, devoid of exploitation, on a par in importance with the necessity for a nature which has its integrity, that is, a nature unimpaired, devoid of transformation beyond its resiliency (pp. 195-199 and 204. Wikipedia “Social Ecology” 2009, pp. 1-2. Wikipedia “Murray Bookchin” 2009, pp. 1-2).

values and politics

Politics about ecology can be translated into a framework of values.

Types of Values: There are three types of values:

1. Intrinsic Value: Intrinsic value is the value we give to reality irrespective of our actions. We are receptive to nature, without doing anything to it. It is not for sale, not to be made into a commodity. It is nature as such, sensually immediate, eternally incomprehensible.

2. Use Value: Use value is that value which is represented by the application of labor to nature – that is, production, whether for use or for exchange. Nature is actively transformed. We look at nature for how we can transform it. Compared to intrinsic value, use value implies an estrangement from nature. It quantifies nature.

The production of commodities expands human capability. Use value represents the place of the commodity in the manifold of human needs and wants.

3. Exchange Value: The production of commodities introduces the potential for exchange and profit-making, and thereby unbalances the already delicate balance between leaving nature untouched, thus preserving its intrinsic value, and transforming it, for its use value. With exchange value, we objectify nature within the framework of an economy.

Exchange value is a quantitative measure, in money terms, of the generalized equivalence of a commodity. It is not grounded in non-human ecosystems. It is an abstraction of the equivalence of two items.

When applied to labor, exchange value (money), forces different human labors to be compared by means of one standard – time expended in production. Capital de-synchronizes natural time (given by the complex, inter-related temporalities of ecosystems), and replaces it with linear and uniform workplace time. Humans are dis-articulated from nature. Clocks (linear temporality) serve social control. Society is time-obsessed. Labor clocks in and clocks out.

As expressed by Karl Marx:

“Men are effaced by their labor. [Not] one man’s hour worth another man’s hour, but . . . one man during an hour worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing. . . Quality no longer matters. Quantity alone decides everything, hour for hour, day for day. ”

(Pp. 39, 62-63 and 212-213. Marx: quote pp. 62-63. See the present document under “Capitalism,” “Exchange Value”).

Capitalist Society – ecologically un-integrated: Capital converts the tangible world into an abstraction for the purpose of value. By definition and a priori, exchange value eliminates the concrete, qualitative aspect of use value. The only mark of exchangeability, is quantity. A number suffices. Money is its embodiment.

Capitalism brings quantity to the center of the social stage. The abstract (money) becomes power. Nature, with its ecosystems full of limits and inter-relationships, no longer provides an internal limit to the value function. Money, as pure quantity, can expand effortlessly and indefinitely, without reference to the external world. Homo oeconomicus (the personification of capitalism), is himself grounded in nature, but his view of the world from the vantage point of money, is not so grounded. It is split from nature, thus setting the stage for a system which disintegrates the natural world.

Separation/ alienation/ splitting, is the fundamental gesture of capital, from the expropriation of land from peasants, to industrial technology, which, in the service of value expansion, splits ecosystems into their component parts. The ecological crisis consists of an exponentially expanding set of economic splits, both in the natural and in the human world (and in the latter, subjectively as well as objectively). The process of the ecological crisis, is a fraying of the fabric of the ecosphere.

In a capitalistic society, people internalize and respond to exchange value, as determined by the market. They may also link use value to exchange (and surplus) value, rather than to either intrinsic value, or use value for their own needs, their own fulfillment. Ostentatious consumption subordinates use value to exchange value.

The lack of contact with nature leads to sports utility vehicles, caffeinated soft drinks, Roundup-ready soy beans, Huey helicopters, gasoline-powered leaf-blowers, baggies full of throw-away razors – and eventually, a type of human life which is disposable. Nature and humanity (which is part of nature), are reduced to mere resources (matter and energy). Cost-effectiveness is the measure of all things. Creative labor is driven out of the market, replaced by crafts made with automated technology. Imbued with the system, people submit to globalization.

The transformation of capital from an ancient part of the economic system to the world-devouring monster reproduced by capitalism, occurred when the value function became attached to labor (pp. 116, 134-137 and 214. Foster 2002, pp. 96 and 162).

Figure 1 depicts the steady and increasing alienation of people from nature during the past three centuries.

Figure 1: Changes in the spatial Relationships between Plants, Animals and Humans,

1700 to 2000

An ecologically-integrated Society: In a liberated, ecologically-integrated society, a use value independent of the exchange value, would serve the needs of both humans and the rest of nature. The needle of the compass would be shifted in the direction of intrinsic value.

Viewed in these terms, eco-socialism is a struggle for use value and intrinsic value. It is a struggle for the qualitative side of human endeavors – not just for hours worked and pay per hour, but for the control over work and its product, a control which incorporates subjectivity, beauty, pleasure and spirituality. Both the material (bread) and the aesthetic (roses) are components of use value.

[Pp. 215-216. See the present document under “Ecological Socialism (Eco-socialism),” “Nature,” “Eco-production,” “Eco-socialism,” “Use and intrinsic Values”).

William Blake (1757-1827), in Songs of experience (1794), using descriptions of the world as seen from a child’s point of view, writes parables which illustrate adult life. Blake reveals a keen awareness of the cruelty and injustice in the word, for which people, not fate, are responsible. In “The sick Rose,” the rose is a human, perhaps a member of the labor force:

The sick Rose

Oh Rose, thou art sick.

The invisible worm,

That flies in the night

In the howling storm,

Has found out thy bed

Of crimson joy,

And his dark secret love

Does thy life destroy.

(Quote pp. 216, 304 and 310, from Blake 1794).

Socialism

Labor:

Capitalism: At the core of capitalism is the use value of labor power – the commodification of labor, and its abstraction into social labor for sale on the market. Labor power is the sine qua non of capitalism – the one feature which defines its dynamic above all others.

Socialism: Socialism seeks the liberation of labor by mending the disconnection between producers and the means with which they produce. This mending of the separation between producers and the means of production, causes the use value of labor to cease being subordinated to exchange value. Labor is now free from the chains of capital, and able to resume its potentials. Laborers are able to associate freely.

The liberation of labor implies a basic change in property relations. The Earth, viewed as the source of all ecosystems, and, therefore, of all use value, is now appropriated by “freely associated producers.” They are free because the means of production are accessible to all, and people determine for themselves whether to participate. They are an association because the collectivity is drawn together by a mutual productive activity. And they are an association of producers, in the sense of humans who produce (not in the sense of producing money or a profit).

Socialism is customarily taken to imply public ownership of the means of production. In fact, however, socialism implies a free association of producers. A free association of producers does indeed imply public ownership, but the reverse is not necessarily true. “Public” may mean an usurper, a substitute for freely associated producers, such as a state, a party, or a leader, now in control of the means of production. This is what became of socialisms in the past.

The notion of a free association of producers is the keystone of Marx’s concept of socialism:

“[The goal of society is to become] an association in which the free development of each, is the condition for the free development of all”

[Pp. 218, 304 and 316. Quote p. 218, from Marx and Engels, The communist manifesto (1848)].

Nature: Today, an integral appreciation of the intrinsic value of nature is not at the existential heart of socialism. For socialists, nature does not command a passion comparable to that reserved for the emancipation of labor. Like capitalism, socialism all too often reduces “nature” to “resources” (pp. 216-219, 227, 229, 265 and 271-272).

ecological socialism (eco-socialism)

Labor:

Socialism and Eco-socialism: Both socialism and eco-socialism overcome exploitation by eliminating the regime of exchange value, which is the hallmark of capitalism. In both systems, labor chooses and develops its own work.

The elimination of the hierarchical and exploitative relations to labor, fosters democratization at all levels of production, and by implication, all of society.

Nature:

Eco-production:

Socialism: Socialism does not address the present crisis of nature specifically. Its focus is the emancipation of labor rather than today’s ecological crisis.

Eco-socialism: An eco-socialist society is defined by being. Relationships with other humans are primary, and the primacy of nature is pervasive. Eco-system integrity is sought across all the nested circles of human participation – family, community, nation, international community, and (joining humanity and nature) the planet and the universe.

Use and intrinsic Values: In addition to eliminating exchange value, eco-socialism seeks the realization of use values and the recognition of intrinsic value. It shifts the intent of production toward use and intrinsic values.

Production for the human ecosystem: Nature does not produce isolated commodities. It evolves new forms which interact with one another in ensembles (ecosystems). These in turn become the loci of further evolution. All beings inhabit nature and co-determine each other. Like all ecosystems, human ecosystems are mutually constitutive, interacting with, and transforming each other. Ecological production represents a conscious attempt to monitor the integrity, wholeness and evolution of human ecosystems.

Producing within an ecosystem means to connect forms through all dimensions – temporal (the past and future are integral to the present) and spatial (no being is alien to what is produced). Where capitalism encourages the new, eco-socialism encourages conservation and efficiency.

The Integrity of Eco-systems: Producing while maintaining the integrity of both human and other ecosystems, is achieved by:

1. A recognition of the process of production as well as the final product. The manufacture of a thing becomes part of the thing itself. Under capitalism, the derivation of pleasure from both process and product, is reserved for what are called “hobbies.” In a society organized around eco-centric production, it would comprise the fabric of everyday life.

2. The maintenance of production within the limits of its energy base – the input of ambient solar radiation. No non-renewable sources of energy are used, as they destroy ecosystems.

Markets: Under eco-socialism, production is carried out by freely associated labor, with both means and ends consciously eco-centric.

This does not mean that other forms of production, such as markets for certain commodities, may not co-exist with eco-centric production. It means that the general mode of production in the society, is eco-centric, in that the agencies of society, such as the state, civil society, culture, and religion, are centered around eco-centric production. This centering has a controlling influence on markets, keeping them functioning according to eco-centric ethics rather than the rules of profit-making.

The society emphasizes being rather than making. The whole human world is taken into account rather than only that part which controls or contributes to exchange value.

Engendering a Decrease in Consumption:

Capitalism: Humanity must reduce its load on planetary eco-systems by a considerable margin. The customary response of environmentalists, is to restrain consumption. Such a focus is repressive, however, as it requires a combination of market forces (such as raising the price of gasoline) and coercion (such as the rationing of gasoline, and legal sanctions for transgressions).

Capitalism must use such a repressive mode because it has no place for either intrinsic or use value. Its exclusive focus on exchange value by-passes inner life, thereby stunting the development of a full and satisfying inner world. The outer world is made to compensate, and people compulsively manufacture and consume commodities. A regime of exchange value leads to ever-more production (growth) and ever-greater consumption.

Eco-socialism: Eco-socialism achieves a decrease in consumption by liberating labor. A labor free from the chains of exchange value, is now able to focus on the use value of its production, with the consequent benefit of having the opportunity to focus on its own, inner world. Use value incorporates both the goal and the path of production, and thus provides an entry to the restoration of intrinsic value. Humans become re-integrated in nature. The outer world is freed from having to make up for an impoverished inner world. Limits to growth are re-defined in terms of a re-structuring of human needs.

For eco-socialism, no “environment” as such exists, since the notion of nature as an environment outside of us, does not, in fact, represent reality. Recognition of ourselves in nature and nature in ourselves – that is, our objective and subjective participation in eco-systems – is an essential condition for overcoming the domination of nature and the pathologies to which it leads. Such pathologies include demands which destroy the ecosystems on which we depend for our very lives.

Facing ecological Limits:

Eco-socialism: The elimination of alienation and exploitation undercuts the necessity for economic growth. The emphasis is on the development of ever-more subtle, mutually recognizing, and spiritually fulfilling ways of being. The aim is fully realized people.

Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750), for example, did not expand music quantitatively, by making it louder and more insistent (like forms of techno-rock music which mirror capitalist relations). He saw deeply into the possibilities of music and realized them.

Limits to growth are thus addressed from the standpoint of quality, by re-organizing labor, increasing the life satisfaction of labor, and re-structuring human needs toward qualitative satisfactions. The issue of limits is one of quality of life, not a technological/bureaucratic one.

Technology:

Capitalism: In a capitalistic society, technology serves the function of converting time into surplus value and money, and hence is seen as isolated from the manifold of social relations. The type of technology developed, is a “technical” problem, subject to considerations of profit and efficiency.

Eco-socialism: In an eco-socialist society, technology is seen as but an element of the manifold of social relations. Seeing a machine or technique as a full participant in the life of an ecosystem, removes from it whatever exchange value it may have, and restores to it its use value. In ecological discourse, this is what is meant by an “appropriate technology” – a technology which enables humans to appropriate nature in human ways.

The social regulator of technology is the enhancement of use values, and the corresponding re-structuring of human needs. The development of technology is determined by labor freely chosen.

Relations of Property: Because we are human to the degree that we engage nature creatively, our self is defined by means of its extensions into the material world. We become who we are by appropriating, transforming, and incorporating nature. It is within this frame of reference that the notion of property logically arises, and that “appropriated property” is set against “expropriated property” – the type of property which forms the scaffolding of a class dominative society. A person with no possessions whatsoever, is no individual at all, as he/she has neither radiations of the self into nature, nor any particular grounding in nature.

Capitalism: In capitalism, the property rights of the individual ego are sacrosanct, and become solidified into class structures, whence they succeed in dispossessing masses of people from their inherent ownership of the means to produce creatively. Each person, alone, split from others and from nature, seeks to have.

Eco-socialism: In eco-socialism, as use value overcomes exchange value, the bounds of the individual ego are surpassed, and the way is opened for the realization of intrinsic value.

In an eco-socialist society, the right of an individual to appropriate freely the means of self-expression is paramount. Society is structured to give this primacy by differentiating between individual and collectivity ownership. Although each person has an inalienable right to good housing (a home and personal possessions), the ownership as such of the housing and the land upon which it stands, is collective, and granted by the collectivity. In this way, there are limits to the amount of property individuals can control, either for domestic usage or for the control productive resources. No person may arrogate such resources as would permit the alienation of means of production from another. Anything which is essential for social production is shared by all.

Everyone has rights of ownership, rights of use, and ownership over those means of production necessary to express the creativity of human nature.

Relation to the Earth:

Capitalism: Under capitalism, exchange value stimulates the thirst for ownership of things, and money to acquire things, including the “possession” of land. The desire to acquire is the subjective dynamic at the root of the ecological crisis.

Eco-socialism: Ownership of the planet is an illusion. It is hubris to think that the earth, or nature, can be owned. One cannot own that which gives one being, that of which one expresses the becoming.

A usufructuary relationship with the Earth is all we can claim – a relation in which we use, enjoy, and improve that which does not belong to us. Eco-socialism seeks to transform the relationship between humanity and nature by healing the ancient wound caused by humanity’s attempts to dominate nature.

Human Subjectivity: The interconnections of a human eco-system include subjective as well as physical elements. An organic farm is not simply a collection of organisms. It is comprised of inter-related organisms in a whole which the farmer recognizes. The farm, and the whole universe to which it connects, are part of the farmer’s self. He/she produces through them. From this perspective, the barrier between humanity and nature dissolves.

The human eco-system is enhanced by the deepening and broadening of human consciousness. Fullness of life implies the consciousness of nature as such, for its intrinsic value.

(Pp. 228-230, 233-238, 243, 268-272 and 278-279. See the present document under “Values and Politics,” “An ecologically-integrated Society”).

THE FUTURE

Another World is possible:

The Dream: The World Social Forum movement has intuited the suppressed dream of humanity – that “another world” is possible. At present, given the number of violent institutions, the mass of human beings crippled by the capitalist system, and the number of major ecosystems ruined, this other world is no more than a dim possibility, indeed, not likely. But we have to act. We have to fight for the only world worth fighting for (pp. 160 and 244-245).

The Commons: Many struggles for “another world” aim at making a piece of the human ecosystem more whole, more integral, more formed, more realized. Each of these struggles points toward eco-socialism.

The various campaigns include:

1. The efforts of communities to:

a. De-commodify the conditions for life, such as water.

b. Resist the intrusion of a polluting industry – that is, move toward “environmental justice.”

c. Build autonomous zones of production relatively outside the capitalist system.

2. The struggle of labor to unionize. A “union” is the eco-centric coming together of those caught up in capitalist production – in solidarity, the hallmark of eco-centrism.

3. The politics of non-violent struggle against globalization and against militarization, also paradigmatic of eco-centric organizing.

4. Action based on the awareness that the struggle against global warming is also a class struggle (an aspect of global warming suppressed in normal discourse). As the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report (2007), warns, “vested interests” will fight every effort at capping carbon.

Eco-centric responses to global warming include:

a. Campaigns against the Kyoto Protocol and its likely successors. Kyoto awards the administration of climate change remedies to the very corporate powers which have created the problem in the first place. All of the Kyoto provisions are vague, and endlessly subject to manipulation and fraud – in other words, primed not to work:

i. Emissions markets are a newly minted market for trading emission credits. They are essentially get-rich-quick schemes.

ii. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows Northern corporation to fund projects in the South to offset continuing emissions. As an exercise in neo-colonialism, it further encloses the Commons, destroys the life-worlds of indigenous people, and drives impoverished humanity into mega-slums.

b. Campaigns against technological Fixes: Being incompatible with planetary ecological balance, capitalism is unsustainable. At present, an immense amount of self-deception and denial is built into the debate on climate. People crave for a technological fix which will enable the continuation of consumerism. Critiques of the nihilism and eco-destructivity of capital must be coupled with the presentation of an alternative in eco-socialism, with its combination of freely associated labor and eco-centric practice.

(Pp. 47-49, 246-248, 258-259 and 262-263. Cox 2008, summarized in Hall 2008c, p. 48. See the present document under “ Green Capitalism,” “Ecological Economics”).

Joel Kovel’s Conclusion

Either Capitalism or Nature: Our destroyer is capitalism. Capitalism is both eco-destructive and un-reformable. However capitalism may restructure and reform itself to secure accumulation, it is incapable of mending the ecological crisis it is engendering.

Our choice is either to end the reign of capital or face the destruction of our world.

We must refuse to accept numbly the logic of our destroyer, refuse to submit passively to the terms of understanding dealt out to us by the dominant system. The de-legitimation of the principle of exchange of capitalism, and the revelation of the extent to which human possibilities are stunted under its regime, open a path to the restoration within ourselves of a sensitivity to the intrinsic beauty of the world. Developing human possibilities of which we are capable, and restoring to nature its intrinsic value, are the two pillars of eco-socialism.

Eco-socialism does not alter our existential position. We remain framed by our limited time on the Earth, and within this time, the opportunity to live as best we can. The challenge of our generation is to transform the relationships we have among ourselves, and the relationship we have with nature. The aim is to make whole the human ecosystem, and all the other ecosystems which together we call “nature” (pp. viii and 277-278).

Joel Kovel would agree with Paul Grignon, who says in his documentary, “Money as Debt” (2006):

“If it is the fundamental nature of the system that causes the problems, tinkering with system cannot ever solve the problem. The system itself must be replaced” (Grignon 2006).

my conclusions

Medicine ensconced in Capitalism: As of 2006, in the United States, 90,000 industrial chemicals were being marketed without restrictions – 85,000 never having been tested for harmful effects (Cox 2008, p. 151, summarized in Hall 2008c. Schwartz-Nobel 2007, p. xviii. Foster 2002, p. 46).

All humans now have a “chemical body load” of probably hundreds of these chemicals. Persistent organic pollutants (POP) are carbon-based compounds which are extremely stable, highly toxic, fat-soluble, very volatile, and highly mobile. Hitchhiking on particles in the atmosphere, such as dust, they hopscotch across the globe in the manner of a grasshopper. They are now pervasive in the food web, their concentration increasing with every step up the food chain. Animal products (in particular, meat, fish and milk) are the primary sources of human exposure. All humans are affected. There is no unexposed population which could be used as a control group in a study.

Among the persistent organic pollutants, the organo-chlorines are of special concern, not only because of their high toxicity but because they are “endocrine disruptors,” interfering the body’s hormones. Examples include pesticides (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex and toxaphene), industrial chemicals [polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) and hexachlorobenzine], and by-products of chlorine manufacture (dioxins and furans). The toxic dose for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) is measured in parts per trillion.

Effects on humans and wildlife include reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and neurological and behavioral abnormalities. Pre-natal and breast milk exposure are of particular concern. As fat reserves are drawn upon during pregnancy and breast feeding, the contaminants which have accumulated in the mother’s body over her lifetime, are suddenly released – just when the fetus/infant is at its most vulnerable (World Wildlife Fund 1999/2002, pp. 1-6).

Testing umbilical cord blood for industrial chemicals is challenging because chemical manufacturers are not required to divulge either to the government or to the public, the methods by which they themselves detect their own chemicals in humans.

In 2005, a random sample of the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies born in United States hospitals, revealed these bloods to contain an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants. The total number of chemicals ascertained was 287. Of these, 217 are known to be toxic to the brain and nervous system of animals, and 208 are known to cause birth defects or abnormal development in animals; 180 are known to cause cancer in both animals and humans (Environmental Working Group 2005, p. 1).

Between 1973 and 1995, in the United States:

Among children under five years of age:

Brain and nervous system cancers increased by 53 percent.

Acute lymphocytic leukemia increased by 18 percent.

Among teenagers:

Male hypospadias increased by 100 percent.

Testicular cancer increased by 78 percent.

Ovarian cancer increased by 65 percent.

(United States National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute 1998, cited in Bogo 2001, pp. 3 and 4).

Between 1965 and 2005, worldwide, for the population as a whole, testicular cancer increased by more than 100 percent. In Caucasian populations, testicular cancer is increasing at a rate of 3 percent annually (United States National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute 2008, pp. 1-2).

Whatever divider there may be between us and the “environment,” it is apparently porous indeed.

Chemical companies would rather consumers not know about the potential dangers which their products pose. The public is on its own, with recourse to such advice as:

“Reducing the amount of fatty foods eaten prior to pregnancy” (Bogo 2001, p. 5).

“Diversifying children’s diets, spreading foods out over time, [thereby] giving children’s immune systems time to catch up with ingestion” (Bogo 2001, p. 6).

“Teaching children about the links between their food and the environment” [Rodale (date unstated), cited in Bogo 2001, p. 6].

“Based on my own research, I’ve sworn off microwave popcorn, I’ve thrown out all the plastic storage containers in my kitchen, and I’ve learned to say ‘no’ to optional stain- and water-resistant treatments offered when I go out and buy big-ticket items such as carpeting and furniture. I vacuum more because so many of these pollutants end up in dust” (Baker 2008).

“Avoiding the top-twelve most contaminated fruits and vegetables.”

Note: This advice is based on an analysis, done conjointly by the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. From 2000 to 2005, pesticide contamination on 44 fruits and vegetables in the United States, was analyzed. The fruits and vegetables selected for analysis, were those that had been reported during a nutrition study, carried out from 1994 to 1996, as having been eaten on at least 0.1 percent of all “eating days.” Of the 44 fruits and vegetables, the twelve most highly contaminated were: Fruits: apples, cherries, grapes (imported), nectarines, peaches, pears, and strawberries. Vegetables: sweet bell peppers, celery, lettuce, potatoes, and spinach) (Environmental Working Group undated, pp. 1-3. Quoted, with the exclusion of lettuce and the inclusion of red raspberries, in Schwartz-Nobel 2007, p. 182).

Ensconced within the framework of capitalism, medical research comes to the rescue. Medicine will provide a technological fix for those body burdens (at least to those who can afford it):

“With human exposure to environmental contaminants inevitable, despite the best application of environmental laws and protection technologies, interest has grown in the potential to reduce the levels of contamination carried in the human host. This study demonstrates the promise of a comprehensive treatment for reduction of body burdens of polychlorinated and polybrominated biphenyls (PCB’s and PBB’s), and chlorinated pesticides” (Schnare, Ben, and Shields 1984, p. 1).

Where is any meaningful protection of either the public or nature? A society which cannot even protect its people, will certainly not protect nature.

The “Gendered Bifurcation of Nature”:

The View of Joel Kovel: Kovel sees the “gendered bifurcation of nature” as “the original dividing line within humanity.” As yet without domination of one sex by the other, this bifurcation dates from:

“the original, hunter-gatherer phase of society [when] the first differentiation of labor occurs according to sex, generally speaking, with males hunting, and females gathering . . . along with their work of reproduction.”

“The phase encompasses the great span of human pre-history, and entails a great range of [transformations between humans and nature], including the domestication of animals and the origins of agriculture” (pp. 125-126).

In a subsequent phase, the men transform the hunt into a raid, in order to expropriate productive labor from other humans. Physical force is institutionalized in order to hold onto what has been stolen (pp. 126 and 127).

The power of the warrior band eventually becomes that of:

“the ruling class, with any number of intermediate and modern variations, such as the Vatican Curia, the NFL Super bowl champions, corporate boards of directors, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Politburo, [and] secret societies, like Yale’s Skull and Bones (in which George W. Bush participated). Indeed, there is a sense in which the whole world has been run by male bands since the beginnings of history” (p. 127).

Thus, the gender differentiation, with male domination, is at the root of all other dominations, whether within humanity (male over female, capital over labor) or between humanity and nature (the domination of nature, leading eventually to the present ecological crisis) (pp. 7 and 125).

My View:

The “Gendered Bifurcation of Nature”:

Beginning: Kovel gives no dates, but sees the “gendered bifurcation of nature” (without yet male domination of females) as arising in the original, hunter-gatherer phase of society. This would be somewhere around 700,000 years ago, during the Lower Paleolithic Period (2,900,000-100,000 years ago). I agree.

As an Agent of Change: Kovel sees this “bifurcation” as entailing such changes as the domestication of animals and the origins of agriculture. I disagree. These developments, occurring around 7,500 B.C.E. [the beginning of the Neolithic Period (7,500-1,500 B.C.E.)], are more logically attributable to factors such as a better understanding of the world, a greater ability to visualize the future, and a more vivid appreciation (hence, fear) of death.

Male Domination of Females: Giving no date, Kovel sees the hunt (an endeavor of men) as having been transformed into a raid in order to dominate females – and other males, as slaves. I disagree.

Warfare spreads after 7,500 B.C.E., and, by 5,000-4,300 B.C.E., it is prevalent in the Near East. In my opinion, war is determined by a different set of factors than the subjugation of females:

1. The hunt does not necessarily get transformed into a raid. The raid depends for its occurrence on the ability to conceptualize substitutability. The raid is a precursor to war, and we know that war is not simply an increase in inter-personal violence – that is, an amplification of fighting among adults, violent child-rearing practices, homicide, or capital punishment (or, I would assume, violence toward animals, such as the hunt). War is the deployment of violence in accordance with a distinctive logic contingent upon concepts rooted in the socio-cultural system.

The transition from capital punishment (with its applicability only to the individual whose criminality has been well-established) and war (in which any member of a group may be targeted for revenge) arises between 7,500 and 3,000 B.C. The development involves the concept of substitutability – the replacement of one member of a group by another for the purpose of killing. It is this transition which initiates war (Kelly 2000, summarized in Hall 2004c, pp. 2-3).

2. It is not necessary to attribute the raid to a wish by males to dominate females. Warfare becomes generally prevalent in the Near East between 5,000 and 4,300 B.C.E. This is about the time of the transition between the “Low Mythic-membership” stage (9,500-4,500 B.C.E.), and the “High Mythic-membership” stage (4,500-2,500 B.C.E.) in the development of consciousness. The self, armed with the concept of substitutability (see Number 1, above), is increasingly able to divert its fear of death into murderous aggression. The original terror becomes death-dealing. Homicide is a substitute sacrifice to appease the fear. Henceforth, the history of humankind is the history of wholesale substitute sacrifices which are characteristic of Homo sapiens – both males and females. The females were not pacifists!

At the mythic-membership stage, both sexes are living their lives according to the prescribed role assigned by society. There is no women’s movement. If the females do not rebel, can it be called domination by males?

Only during the “High Egoic” stage (1,500 C.E.-Present), with the Enlightenment and the ability to think rationally and logically (and develop science), do individuals see themselves as sufficiently independent of the whole, to realize that they are free to decide for themselves how they want to live, and do not have to follow rules. Only then, do women rebel, and the movement for women’s rights begins (Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792).

3. With the development of agriculture, males need to defend the food surpluses which it provides. The intent of their violence is not necessarily the subjugation of females.

The next section summarizes my data base.

It seems that in order to stem global warming, we need not only to replace capitalism as an economic organizing system for society, but we need also:

* A new creation myth – one that can give us ecologically-friendly roots.

* Gods of both sexes.

* New heroes modeling acceptance, rather than rejection of death.

* A non-exploitative attitude toward our universe (nature, animals, other humans).

* A new history to chronicle human inner feats (such as growth of consciousness) rather than outer victories (such as in war).

* A new science, produced not by masters of nature but by ecological members of nature.

* A new technology to accommodate our new relationships to each other and nature.

* A new literature to bring these changes to the awareness of all.

No discipline can remain untouched.

The Western world might be able to achieve such major changes in its culture over the course of thousands of years – the time it takes to achieve a higher level of consciousness, with its enablement of a wider, deeper, kinder world view. Unfortunately, global warming already now manifests itself, and the time we have at our disposal must be measured in centuries, not millennia. Perhaps we have only a century, at most two.

The chances that Western culture will make the abrupt turn around are minimal. And as Western culture goes, so probably will the rest of the world. At the present time, Eastern cultures are not in the ascendency.

An abject, infinite, inexpressible apology

to past and future generations of all life forms,

for the abominable, unfathomable crime

my generation is committing,

as I write.

the Evolution of Human CONSCIOUSNESS

The Lower Paleolithic Period (2,900,000-100,000 years ago)

Years ago

6,000,000

The “Pleroma-uroboros” Stage of Consciousness (6,000,000-200,000 years ago). This is the stage of Australopithecus africanus (man-apes, 4,000,000 years ago), Homo habilis (2,000,000 years ago), and Homo erectus (1,500,000-250,000 years ago).

Man’s world and man’s self (the newly evolving center of his experience) are basically undifferentiated. Man’s primitive awareness is embedded in physical nature (pleroma, the potential of physical nature), and dominated by animal/reptilian impulses (symbolically represented by a uroboros, a serpent eating its own tail – that is, self-possessed, narcissistically all-enclosing).

Man has no conception of time (he is pre-temporal), and no real comprehension of death. He understands his world through magic. He forages (hunts and gathers). He decapitates and eats his children. There is no archaeological evidence of warfare.

This is the structure of consciousness which has engendered the universal myths of a Garden of Eden – a time of innocence, before the “fall” into separation and knowledge with reflection.

The sex ratio during the reign of Homo erectus, and during the reign of Homo sapiens until the end of the Paleolithic Period (10,000 years ago), is, on the average, 148 to 100 in favor of men.

1,800,000

The Pleistocene geologic Epoch (1,800,000-11,000 years ago) begins. Ice sheets will cover all of Antarctica, reaching into large parts of Europe, North and South America, as well as some parts of Asia.

250,000

Homo sapiens is fully evolved from Homo erectus.

200,000

The “Typhon” Stage of Consciousness (200,000-9,500 B.C.E.). This is the age of Neanderthal Man (200,000-50,000 years ago), and Cro-Magnon Man (50,000-10,000 years ago). Man’s self is his body, and he experiences this body-self as separate from the natural world. In fact, it seems central to the natural world, and must be defended against all odds. The experience is that of a “self-in-here” versus “the world-out-there.”

Although Man distinguishes himself from his environment, he remains magically intermingled with it. Cognition is characterized by the primary process (like dreams), in which subject and object, and whole and parts are confused. The mode is “parataxic” in which experience, previously undifferentiated, is now divided into parts, but these parts still remain connected by magical association and contamination. Logic is not available.

Time has become a means of repressing death (for to deny death is to demand a future), and a substitute for eternity (for time gives the illusion of continuing). Man lives in the present, knows that he is a separate individual living in the present, and seeks to preserve this present by consciously carrying it forward to the next present, and the next, and the next, as a promise that death will not touch him now. The demand is that the present move perpetually to its successor.

Groups consist of 40-50 individuals. The daily hunt deals death so that man can live. There is no archaeological evidence of warfare.

The Middle Paleolithic Period (100,000-35,000 years ago)

70,000

Language consists of intentional calls.

67,000

Homo sapiens becomes the only surviving hominid species.

50,000

Cro-Magnon Man (50,000-10,000 years ago).

Language includes modifiers

The Upper Paleolithic Period (35,000-10,000 B.C.E.)

B.C.E.

35,000

Art makes its appearance. There is no archaeological evidence of warfare.

12,000

A burial site, dating from 12,000-10,000 B.C.E. (“Nubian Site 117”), near Jebel Sahaba, Sudan, is the first known archaeological evidence of warfare.

11,000

The Pleistocene geologic Epoch (1,800,000-11,000 years ago) ends. Glaciers retreat. The present Holocene Epoch begins.

THE Mesolithic Period (10,000-7,500 B.C.E.)

10,000

People live in settled communities. There is no archaeological evidence of warfare.

9,500

The “Low Mythic-membership” Stage of Consciousness (9,500-4,500). Two major transformations have occurred. Man’s concept of himself is now more than his body. It is also a mental self. And Man’s time is now an extended time, including past and future. Language has been a vehicle for these transformations. By representing a sequence of events symbolically in language, and projecting the sequence beyond the immediate present, Man has ipso facto, transcended both his body (which is always in the present) and the simple, passing present.

Cognition is mythic – a mixture of magic and logic. Societies are horticultural. Time is seasonal, cyclic. As Man pictures the future more accurately, he also apprehends his own mortality more vividly. Spirit, located “out there,” demands sacrifice, and specific steps must be taken to come into accord with it.

Aggression and homicide, in the form of war, begin.

9,000

Hunting, fishing and gathering are the main sources of food. Simple agricultural practices appear simultaneously in several places in the Levant and present-day Iraq. Towns are of around 200 people. Kingship begins.

tHE neolithic Period (7,500-1,500 B.C.E.)

B.C.E.

7,500

Man domesticates plants and animals. Agriculture begins (7,500-7,000).

Religion consists of the cult of the Great Mother – a cosmic-size biological source of nourishment, and a fertility token. The Great Mother reflects the “Low Mythic-membership” view of the world, which is close to the body, instincts and nature, and hence develops myths and symbols about these lower levels. She demands human sacrifice to ward off death. Early “divine” kings are mythically viewed as her consorts, and, after a reign of a span of years, are killed.

In the Near East, there is a second archaeological evidence of warfare, dating from 7,500-7,000. Soon, war would begin to spread.

7,000

Innumerable farming settlements dot the Near East.

6,000

Food surpluses allow the emergence of specialized classes, in the form of priests, administrators and educators.

5,000

Agriculture has spread throughout the Near East (the Tigris-Euphrates and Nile Valleys). Some cities have 10,000 inhabitants. The Sumerian civilization (which will flower c. 3,500 B.C.E.) begins as a pre-historic village culture in South Mesopotamia. Hierarchical and centralized forms of political organization evolve.

Between 5,000 and 4,300 B.C.E., warfare becomes increasingly prevalent.

4,500

The “High Mythic-membership” Stage of Consciousness (4,500-2,500 B.C.E.). City-states and theocracies flower in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Kingship blossoms.

Death is overcome by the accumulation of time-defying tokens in the visible world, such as pyramids, mummies and golden death masks.

4,300

War is now generally prevalent in the Near East. The terror of death is externalized and converted into murderous aggression. Homicide is the sacrifice of another as a substitute for the self. Henceforth, the history of humankind is the history of the wholesale substitute sacrifices which characterize Homo sapiens.

3,500

The Sumerian, the first of the higher civilizations, flourishes.

The Great Mother begins to be transformed into a metaphysical symbol – the Great Goddess, the arch personification of the power of Matter, Space and Time, within whose bounds all beings arise and die. Everything is her child, within her womb. There is a Oneness which underlies all, and gives birth to all – space, time, body, mind, and the natural world. The manifest world is the great production (mahamaya) of the One, and is, therefore, fundamentally One. All (the manifest world) is (the production of) One.

3,200

Societies are agrarian. Physical labor (plowing) is necessary for subsistence, and places a premium on male physical strength and mobility. No known agrarian society has the concept of women’s rights.

The alphabet, mathematics, writing and the calendar are the first truly and purely mental productions of humans. Money, a mental, symbolic form of material transfer, comes into existence. Labor is symbolized as wages – the beginning of exchange value.

3,000

Contemplative endeavors, such as deep subjectivity, interior awareness, meditation and contemplation, locate Spirit “in here.” Steps toward a more fully realized spiritual awareness are arrayed in a “Great Chain of Being” – the universal sequence of hierarchic levels of increasing consciousness (inanimate substances, plants, animals, humans).

Sumerian writers document frequent warfare over land and water rights between the city-states of Ur, Uruk, Kish, and Lagash. Egyptian writers document the unification, by conquest, of Upper and Lower Egypt into one kingdom under King Menes (fl. 3,200 B.C.E.).

Egypt is the first of a series of empires made possible by the invention of metallurgy and specialized warfare.

2,800

On the mainland of present-day Greece, the Mycenaean civilization (c. 2,800-1,200 B.C.E.) arises.

2,500

The “Low Egoic” Stage of Consciousness (2,500-500 B.C.E.) (in Europe and the Near East). The egoic structure of consciousness emerges. The development of a unique individuality is a major achievement, given expression in the new “hero myth,” which describes an individual hero battling with the Great Mother (or one of her derivatives), and triumphing, not allowing himself to be swallowed back into her (into sub-consciousness).

The mythical dragon, usually represented as a huge, winged, fire-breathing reptile (the serpent element indicating a very low level of consciousness, bound to the earth), guards a treasure. The highest achievement of the hero is to slay the dragon and liberate the treasure (the ego).

Concurrently, the mythologies of the Great Mother are transformed, and a new preference is found for male-oriented, patriarchal mythologies. (The ego takes on a male identity, needing all the ways it can to differentiate itself from the all-encompassing female giant). In Greece, Zeus triumphs over Typhon, the youngest child of Gaea, the goddess Earth, and thereby secures the reign of the patriarchal gods on Mount Olympus.

In the East, the Great Mother would complete her transformation into the Great Goddess. The ego does not reject the Great Mother, but differentiates itself from her, and integrates her within itself. Eastern religions would develop both male and female gods.

In the West, however, the ego would suppress the Great Mother, and, therefore, (except for Mary), leave her out of subsequent mythology. There would be no Great Goddess in the West. The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions are patriarchal in the extreme.

In the West (except for a few individuals, of which Christ is an example – “I and the Father are one”), the spheres of the Divine and the Human, would not evolve to become one. The ego would split itself from Below – Man from Nature (mind from body), and split itself from Above – Man from God (without a higher synthesis to One, the Dahrmakaya).

(See the present document under “Present-day ecological Politics,” “‘Green Capitalism’ – Capitalism but with Modifications,” Number 7, “Progressivism,” “Note”).

1,750

In South Mesopotamia, King Hammurabi (fl. 1792-1750 B.C.E.) founds the Babylonian Empire, which encompasses the states established by the city rulers of Ur, Uruk, Akkad and Lagash. He issues a code of law for the management of his Empire (See also entry under 1,000 B.C.E.)

In Babylon, capital of the Empire, mythology is still steeped in a polytheistic, animistic religious practice focused on female fertility, and a belief in the fundamental correspondence between the human experience and rhythms of nature. An anonymous poet writes the Epic of Gilgamesh, a saga which recounts the exploits of King Gilgamesh, of Uruk, said to have lived 1,000 years earlier (c. 2,750 B.C.E.).

Young, half-divine King Gilgamesh, afraid of death after his friend’s premature demise, sets out to obtain for himself the secret to eternal life. The gods tell him the futility of his search, and he returns to Uruk, re-awakened to the wonders of home – the “here and now.” In recognition of the fundamental and inescapable unity of humanity and nature, Gilgamesh accepts his own mortality.

The creation myth assumed by the author of the Epic is one in which humans were created by the mother goddess, out of clay and the blood of an (alas!) errant god. Humans were created from defective material. They are, from the outset, innately and irrevocably flawed – wayward (Noble 2005, summarized in Hall 2008a, pp. 1-5. See also under entry 550 B.C.E.).

1,500

In the Near East, male-oriented, patriarchal mythologies of thunder-hurling gods are the dominant divinities. The new, heroic ego, full of hubris, falls for the illusory assumption that it is self-sufficient and independent. It represses, not only the lower levels of consciousness from which it emerged, but also the higher realms to which it could have aspired.

There thus arises that peculiarly Western egoic mood – cool, rational, abstract, isolated, over-individualistic, solid, shy of its emotions, shyer of God – an atmosphere of hubris (from the Greek hybris, the “pride that goeth before a fall”).

This ego, built upon a repression of the Below (the body, women, nature), and a denial of the Above (the synthesis with the All), built upon a disdain of Earth and a refusal of Heaven, this ego, with its visions of cosmo-centricity, would proceed to remake the Western world, and eventually underwrite an entire civilization.

1,300

History, as the chronicle of events in a society, begins. Because of the dissociation of the ego from both the Below (the body, women, nature) and the Above (God), chronicles are accounts of the power-laced feats of the ego, not the inner-oriented, evolutionary steps of Man toward Atman. Full of hubris, the ego refuses to give up its cosmo-centrism.

1,000

The individualistic ego, drunk with its new power, and cut loose from its organic typhonic and membership roots, is terrorized by death – and quite willing to deal death to others as a substitute.

The egoic era brings with it, levels of murderous aggression yet unknown in the history of the world. An example are the mass atrocities which Assyrian King Tiglath-pileser I (1115-1077 B.C.E.) inflicts upon his victims, as he invades Asia Minor, North Syria, Armenia, and Babylonia. Nothing like this existed before the egoic, heroic, individualist period.

A chronicle of time begins its horrifying account:

“He no longer joins the name of god to his name” (Wilber 1981/1996, p. 297).

It is not just that kings would slaughter, maim, torture, enslave and rape, but that people would be ecstatic at these actions. Joyful release would accompany the outbreak of war. An Assyrian poet of the time sings:

“He slits the wombs of pregnant women,

He blinds the infants,

He cuts the throats of their strong ones” (Kern 1999, p. 83).

Even the laws mete out the bloodiest penalties yet known in world history, including for minor misdemeanors. American psychologist Julian Jaynes (1920-1997) notes:

“They make a dramatic contrast to the [more just] admonishments that the god of Babylon dictated to . . . Hammurabi six centuries earlier” (Jaynes 1976, quoted in Wilber 1981/1996, pp. 297 and 371. See also under entry 1,750 B.C.E.).

This “policy of frightfulness” – the practice of cruelty in an attempt to rule by fear – thus makes its appearance for the first time in the history of civilization, when Man has just begun to feel subjectively the power of egoic consciousness.

550

The Babylonian Empire arises at the site of the original Babylonian kingdom which produced the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Another literary master writes a saga, recorded in the Hebrew Bible, about a man, Abraham, said to have lived more than 1,000 years earlier (c. 1,750 B.C.E.).

The central message of this saga is very different from that of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Abraham receives a message from God without first having traveled or undergone a trial. God enjoins him to go forth from his native land. In return, God will bless him, and make him great and powerful.

The creation myth in which the saga is set, declares that humans were created from clay by a male God, in his own image. Humans were, therefore, originally perfect. Their waywardness is not an innate trait, but an aberration in behavior which constitutes disobedience (sin), and was punished by exile from paradise. Mankind became estranged from its God-given identity and existence. Death is rejected. Hope lies in redemption – that is, the restoration of perfection.

Gone from the landscape are any female gods, any humility about being part of nature (and, therefore, accepting death), and any acceptance of the “here and now.” The Epic of King Gilgamesh has been overturned, its main messages re-written to accommodate an ego made in the male image – restless, grandiose, and, with eyes fixed on the future, demanding full perfection and eternal life (Noble 2005, summarized in Hall 2008a, pp. 1-5. See also under entry 1,750 B.C.E.).

The presumption and haughtiness of Western culture toward nature can be traced back to its Judaic roots. Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Bible, generally ascribed to Moses (fl. 1,250 B.C.E.), gives Man dominion over nature:

“God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth’” (Cited pp. 123-124. Quote, Holy Bible, Old Testament, Genesis 1:26).

No other world religion, and certainly none of the tribal religions, incorporates the domination of nature so directly and to such a degree.

Throughout the history of Christianity, forces against nature would predominate (p. 124).

For example, disdain for:

Women:

Saint Paul (d. 65? C.E.):

“Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord” (Holy Bible, New Testament, Romans 13:1, quoted in McMurtry 1999, pp. 6 and 261-262; summarized in Hall 2008b, p. 7).

Labor:

Galileo (1564-1642) (speaking as land enclosures, displacing people from their land and forcing them as “labor” into cities, were reaching their peak):

“Women and ordinary folk – the shallow minds of common people (Noble 1997/1999, p. 204, summarized in Hall 2004a, p. 8).

Nature:

John Milton (1608-1674):

“[Nature] will surrender to man as its appointed governor, and his rule will extend from command of the earth and seas, to dominion over the stars” (Noble 1997/1999, p. 48, summarized in Hall 2004a, p. 8).

The Body

Lee Silver, Professor of Molecular Biology, Princeton University, with appointments also in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs; the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy; the Center for Health and Well-being; the Office of Population Research; and the Princeton Environmental Institute (Wikipedia “Lee M. Silver” 2009, p. 1).

In 1997, Silver predicted that, by the year 2,340:

“the GenRich [genetically-enriched] class and the Natural class will [have] become . . . entirely separate species, with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee” (Silver 1997/1998, p. 282, cited in McKibben 2003, pp. 38-39, summarized in Hall 2004b, p. 7).

500

The “Middle Egoic” Stage of Consciousness (500-1,500 C.E.) (In Europe and the near East). The dissociation of the ego (the mental) from the typhonic and membership structures (the body-bound), the mind from the body, is now a permanent element in the European tradition, and the distinguishing mark of European and Western Man. Reason and instincts are at war. Time is historical, linear and conceptual.

C.E.

1,500

The “High Egoic” Stage of Consciousness (1,500-Present) (In Europe and the Near East). The Enlightenment sets in motion the development of Modernity, marked by industrialization and rationality.

Reviewing briefly the history of war: Around 9,500 B.C.E., during the “Low Mythic-membership” stage of consciousness, war, consisting of aggression and mass homicide, makes its appearance. The two earliest archaeological evidences of war date from 12,000 and 7,500 B.C.E., respectively. War then gradually spreads, and, between 5,000 and 4,300 B.C.E., becomes generally prevalent.

Around 3,000 B.C.E., during the “High Mythic-membership” stage of consciousness, the invention of metallurgy makes specialized warfare possible, and the war machine comes into being.

War at the present time: As of around 1,500 C.E., the beginning of the “High-Egoic” stage of consciousness, all the characteristics of murderous aggression of the earlier stages of consciousness are retained, but assume enormously increased pervasiveness and intensity. The war machine spins out of control. Wars, fought over ideas rather than property and goods, lead to the sheer and senseless destruction of all goods, people and property. Any, even vaguely sacred restraints, are removed (or, with the pursuit of “holy wars,” their meaning overturned) (Wilber 1981/1996, pp. 296-297).

People are part of nature, and it is not surprising that the treatment of nature has paralleled the treatment of people. By 2,000 C.E., global warming would put in jeopardy the very existence of life on earth as humans hitherto have known it.

1,600

Industrialization (in the West), replaces men with machines, thereby removing the premium on male physical strength. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) writes her treatise, Vindication of the rights of women (1792), and a women’s movement emerges for the first time in history.

1,700

In the West, reason (the formal operational stage) emerges as the basic organizing principle of society.

1,900

The modern West is increasingly dominated by a rationality which knows and manipulates an objectified, “disenchanted,” “disqualified” world. Quality (interior depth) is increasingly measured in terms of quantity. Internal nature (interiors, the body) is repressed.

2,000

The Great Extinction Spasm Number 6 engulfs the Earth. It is a result of human activity and sharply reduces biodiversity in almost a single generation.

(deMause 1974, summarized in Hall 2003a. deMause 2002, summarized in Hall 2003b. Kelly 2000, summarized in Hall 2004c. Wilber 1977/1993, 1980/1996, 1981/1996, 1983/2005, 1995/2000, 1996, and 2000/2001, all seven books summarized in Hall 2005b. Wilson 1992/1999, summarized in Hall 2005a. All eleven of the above books summarized in Hall 2005c).

References

Unspecified page numbers refer to:

Kovel, Joel. 2002/2007. The enemy of nature – the end of capitalism or the end of the world? London, UK: Zed Books.

Specified page numbers refer to:

American Free Press, 2009. “Obama confident US will have cap-and-trade Law.” March 24.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article. Accessed March 25, 2009.

American Institute for Economic Research, 2009. “Obama’s Carbon Cap and Trade Policy is costly for Consumers.” (Richard Ebeling). March 25.

http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/1321. Accessed March 25, 2009.

Associated Press, 2009. “Climate warming Gases rising faster than expected.” (Randolph Schmid). February 14. Reproduced by Yahoo! News.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090215/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_change. Accessed February 17, 2009.

Baker, Nena. 2008. “The Body Toxic.” Presentation, Seattle, WA, October 10. Broadcast by Alternative Radio.

http://www.alternativeradio.org. programs/BAKN001.shtml.

Blake, William, 1794. “The Sick Rose,” in Songs of Experience, reproduced in William Blake – the complete poems. Alicia Ostriker, Editor. 1977. London, England: Penguin. Page 123.

Bogo, Jennifer, 2001. “Children at Risk – Widespread chemical Exposure threatens our most vulnerable Population.” Emagazine, Vol. 7, No. 5, Sept./Oct. (Bogo is a former managing editor of Emagazine).

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Children-Chemical-Exposure.htm. Accessed March 7, 2009.

Cazenave, Anny, 2006. “Biography.” January.

http://www.iag-ggos.org/sp/bios/Cazenave. Accessed February 8, 2009.

Cox, Stan. 2008. Sick Planet – corporate food and medicine. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008c. “Capitalism – the Poverty-culprit and the Eco-culprit.” December 30 (66 pages, unpublished).

deMause, Lloyd

1974. AThe Evolution of Childhood.@ In Lloyd deMause, Ed., The history of childhood. Northvale, N. J.: Jason Aronson.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2003a. ATo Enheduana.@ (Poem). August 30 (14 pages, unpublished).

2002. The emotional life of nations. New York: Karnac/Other.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2003b. AHistorical Personalities and Violence.@ October 14 (3 pages, unpublished).

Democracy Now!

2009a. “UN calls for ‘Global Green New Deal.’” Headlines. February 17.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/17/headlines.

2009b. “Member of UN environment Panel warns Greenhouse Emissions rising at alarming, unexpected Rate.” Interview, Christopher Field, by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. February 26.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/26. Accessed February 28, 2009.

Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon, 2006. “Where did the Productivity Growth go?” Cited in Paul Krugman, the New York Times 2006. February 27. Reprinted in ZFacts, undated. “Income, Wealth and Poverty”; and in Gordon’s Notes, 2006. “Where has the Money gone? To the very American Oligarchy.” February 28.

http://zfacts.com/p/335.html. Accessed March 26, 2009.

http://notes.kateva.org/2006/02. Accessed March 26. 2009.

Environment News Service, 2009. “Climate could cross critical Threshold by 2100, Expert warns.” February 16. Reproduced by Mindfully.

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2009. Accessed February 28, 2009.

Environmental Law Professor Blogs Network, 2009. “Christopher Field and Anny Cazenave – AAAS reports on rapidly worsening Climate Change.”

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law/2009/02/christopher-field.html. Accessed February 17, 2009.

Environmental Working Group,

2005. “Body Burden – the Pollution in Newborns: A benchmark Investigation of industrial Chemicals, Pollutants, and Pesticides in human umbilical Cord Blood.” Summary. July 14. (The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit organization, founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, and based in both Washington, D.C. and Oakland, CA).

http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php. Accessed March 6, 2009.

Undated. “What’s the Difference?” Shopper’s Guide – Food News. Cited, with the exclusion of lettuce and the inclusion of red raspberries, in Schwartz-Nobel, Loretta. 2007.

http://www.foodnews.org/metholology.php. Accessed march 8, 2009.

Foster, John Bellamy. 2002. Ecology against Capitalism. New York, N.Y.: Monthly Review.

Green Party of the United States, 2000. “Ten Key Values of the Green Party.” Ratified at the Green Party Convention, Denver, CO. June.

http://www.gp/tenkey.shtml. Accessed February 23. 2009.

Grignon, Paul. 2006. “Money as Debt.” Documentary Film. Moonfire Studio/Lifeboat News. Soundtrack broadcast by TUC Radio.

http:paulgrignon.netfirms.com. Accessed March 15, 2009.

http://www.moneyasdebt.net.

http://www.tucradio.org/new.html.

Hall, Francoise,

2003a. ATo Enheduana.@ (Poem). August 30 (14 pages, unpublished).

2003b. AHistorical Personalities and Violence.@ October 15 (3 pages, unpublished).

2003c. “War institutionalized – the United Nations System of National Accounts.” October 31 (7 pages, unpublished).

2004a. “Technology driven by Faith in God.” April 5 (28 pages, unpublished).

2004b. “Besting God – Genetic Engineering, Nanotechnology and Robotics” April 24 (9 pages, unpublished).

2004c. “The Origin of WarB Archaeological Evidence of Warfare.” August 8 (23 pages, unpublished).

2005a. “Ask the Mosquitoes.” (Poem). March 19 (17 pages, unpublished).

2005b. AA Transpersonal View of War B War as a Substitute for Cosmo-centrism and Immortality during the Egoic Stage in the Development of Consciousness@ November 5 (103 pages, unpublished).

2005c. “The History of War – with a Critique of Lloyd deMause’s Position that harsh Child-rearing Modes are the Cause of War). December 11 (42 pages, unpublished).

2008a. “The Myth behind corporate Globalization.” June 1 (58 pages, unpublished).

2008b. “The Market Paradigm and the Destruction of Life.” October 21 (97 pages, unpublished).

2008c. “Capitalism – the Poverty-culprit and the Eco-culprit.” December 30 (66 pages, unpublished).

2009. “Choose your God wisely.” (Poem). February 6 (9 pages, unpublished).

Hansen, James et al, 2008. “Target atmospheric Carbon dioxide – Where should Humanity aim?” Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Vol. 2 (October 15).

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126. Accessed February 8, 2009.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2009. “Choose your God wisely.” (Poem). February 6 (9 pages, unpublished).

Holy Bible.

Old Testament, Genesis (New American Standard Bible (1995).

New Testament, Romans.

Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Kelly, Raymond. 2000. Warless societies and the origin of war. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004c. AThe Origin of War B Archaeological Evidence of Warfare.@ August 8 (23 pages, unpublished).

Kern, Paul Bentley. 1999. Ancient siege warfare. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

Kibaki, Mwai, 2009. Opening Address, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 25^th Session, Governing Council/ Global Ministerial Environment Forum. Gigiri, Kenya. February 17. Transcribed by the Kenya Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

http://www/mfa.go.ke/mfacms/index.php?option=com. Accessed February 18, 2009.

Marx, Karl. 1848. The communist manifesto. Cited in Joel Kovel 2002/2007, pp. 218, 316 and 319.

Meadows, Donnella, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William Behrens. 1972, The limits to growth. New York, N.Y: Universe Books.

McKibben, Bill. 2003. Enough – staying human in an engineered age. New York, N.Y: Henry Holt/Owl.

Summarized in Francoise Hall 2004b. “Besting God – Genetic Engineering, Nanotechnology and Robotics.” April 24 (9 pages, unpublished).

McMurtry, John. 1999. The cancer stage of capitalism. Sterling, VA: Pluto.

Summarized in Francoise Hall 2008b. “The Market Paradigm and the Destruction of Life.” October 21 (97 pages, unpublished).

Media Lens Message Board, 2009. “Global Warming ‘under-estimated,’ Chris Field, Director, Department of Global Ecology, Stanford.” (RobB). February 15.

http://members5/boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1234701918.html. Accessed February 17, 2009.

Noble, David.

1997/1999. The religion of technology – the divinity of man and the spirit of invention. New York, N.Y.: Penguin.

Summarized in Francoise Hall 2004a. “Technology driven by Faith in God.” April 5 (28 pages, unpublished).

2005. Beyond the Promised Land – the movement and the myth. Toronto, ON, Canada: Between the Lines.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008a. “The Myth behind corporate Globalization.” June 1 (58 pages, unpublished).

Obama, Barack,

2009a. Speech, “The Economy.” Elkhart, Indiana. February 9. Transcribed by MSNBC.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/text-of-obama-speech. Accessed February 18, 2009.

2009b. Weekly Radio Address. February 22. Broadcast by Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/23/healines. Accessed February 23, 2009.

2009c. White House Press Conference, televised nationally. March 24. Quote in PetroleumWorld, 2009. “Obama to push for new Oil and Gas Industry Taxes.” March 25.

http://www.petroleumworld.com/storyt09032502.htm. Accessed March 25, 2009.

Orwell, George, 1946. “Some Thoughts on the Common Toad.” Quoted in Foster 2002, pp. 75 and 78.

Regime Shift, 2009. “Chris Field says Rate of Climate Change faster than estimated.” (Gary Peterson). February 15.

http://rs/resalliance.org/2009/02/15/chris-field. Accessed February 17, 2009.

Rodale, Florence, date unstated. Cited in Bogo, Jennifer, 2001. (Florence Rodale is founder of the Rodale Institute, which describes itself as a “Leader in organic Solutions to Global Warming”).

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Children-Chemical-Exposure.htm. Accessed March 7, 2009.

Schnare, David, Max Ben, and Megan Shields, 1984. “Body Burden Reductions of PCB’s, PBB’s, and chlorinated Pesticides in human Subjects.” Ambio. Vol. 13, No. 5-6.

http://www/detoxacademy.org/pdfs/ambio/pdf. Accessed March 7, 2009.

Schwartz-Nobel, Loretta. 2007. Poisoned nation – pollution, greed, and the rise of deadly epidemics. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin’s.

Science and Development Network, 2009. “Climate Change ‘more serious’ as Emissions soar.” (Aisling Irwin). February 16.

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/climate-change.html. Accessed February 17, 2009.

Shiva, Vandana.

2000. Stolen harvest – the hijacking of the global food supply. Cambridge, MA: South End.

2005. Earth democracy – justice, sustainability, and peace. Cambridge, MA: South End.

2008. “Food Justice.” Presentation, Pullman, WA. November 5. Broadcast by Alternative Radio.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/SHOIV012.shtml. Accessed February 22, 2009.

Silver, Lee. 1997/1998. Remaking Eden – how genetic engineering and cloning will transform the American family. New York, N.Y.: Avon.

Union of Concerned Scientists, 1992. “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity.”

http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html. Accessed March 13, 2009.

United Nations,

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),

1999. Human Development Report 1999. New York: Oxford University.

2001. Human Development Report 2001—Making new technologies work for human development. New York: Oxford University.

2004. Human Development Report 2004 – Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world. New York: Oxford University.

2008. Human Development Report 2007/2008 – Fighting climate change, human solidarity in a divided world. New York: Oxford University.

http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/2.html. Accessed February 24, 2009.

United Nations,

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),

2008. “Green Economy Initiative.” October 22.

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy. Accessed February 19, 2009.

2009a. “Realizing a ‘Green New Deal’” Nairobi, Kenya. February 16. (Also broadcast on Democracy Now!, February 17, 2009).

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?Document ID=562. Accessed February 18, 2009.

2009b. “Urgent Need for ‘Global Green New Deal’ – United Nations.” Nairobi, Kenya. (American Free Press News Agency). February 16. Capital News.

http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/Local/Urgent-need-for-Global-Green-New-Deal: UN. Accessed February 18, 2009.

United States,

Bureau of the Census,

2008. International Data Base, “Life Expectancy Female/Male, United States”

http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx??Data_Set_Id=340/339. Updated August 15, 2008. Accessed February 24, 2009.

2009. International Data Base, “Countries and Areas ranked by Population, 2009.”

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl. Updated December 15, 2008. Accessed February 24, 2009.

National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.

1998. Cited in Bogo, Jennifer, 2001.

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Children-Chemical-Exposure.htm. Accessed March 7, 2009.

2008. “Testicular Cancer Screening – Incidence and Mortality.” April 3.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/testicular. Accessed March 8, 2009.

Waring, Marilyn.

1995. “Who’s counting? – Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies, and global Economics.” National Film Board of Canada/Bullfrog films. Terre Nash, Director. Soundtrack broadcast by TUC Radio.

http://www.tucradio.org/new.html.

1999. Counting for nothing – what men value and what women are worth. 2^nd Edition. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.

Summarized in Francoise Hall 2003c. “War institutionalized – the United Nations System of National Accounts.” October 31 (7 pages, unpublished).

Washington Post, 2009. “Pace of Climate Change exceeds Estimates.” (Kari Lydersen). February 15. Reproduced by Mindfully.

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2009. Accessed February 28, 2009.

Wikipedia,

2008,

“Petra Kelly.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra_Kelly. Updated December 17. Accessed March 24, 2009.

2009,

“Alliance for Climate Protection.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alliance_for_Climate_Protection. Updated March 13. Accessed March 14, 2009.

“Murray Bookchin.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin. Updated January 29. Accessed February 25, 2009.

“Herman Daly.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly. Updated February 5. Accessed March 24, 2009.

“Hans Magnus Enzensberger.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Magnus_Enzensberger. Updated January 30. Accessed March 12, 2009.

“G-20 major Economies.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20_industrial_nations. Updated February 16. Accessed February 19, 2009.

“Al Gore.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore. Updated March 12. Accessed March 13, 2009.

“David Korten.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Korten. Updated March 5. Accessed March 20, 2009.

“Ralph Nader.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader. Updated February 23. Accessed February 23, 2009.

“Arne Naess.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_Naess. Updated February 16. Accessed February 23, 2009.

“William Nordhaus.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nordhaus. Updated February 8. Accessed March 12, 2009.

“Carroll Quigley.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley. Updated March 14. Accessed March 15, 2009.

“Kirkpatrick Sale.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkpatrick_Sale. Updated February 6. Accessed February 23, 2009.

“E. F. Schumacher.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacker. Updated February 3. Accessed February 23, 2009.

“Joseph Schumpeter.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter. Updated March 3. Accessed March 12, 2009.

“Vandana Shiva.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva. Updated February 22. Accessed February 23, 2009.

“Lee M. Silver.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_M_Silver. Updated February 14. Accessed March 21, 2009.

“Social Ecology.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Ecology. Updated February 22. Accessed February 23, 2009.

“Lawrence Summers.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers. Updated March 11. Accessed March 12, 2009.

“Marilyn Waring.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Waring. Updated January 16. Accessed March 28, 2009.

“We Campaign.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/We_Campaign. Updated February 26. Accessed March 14, 2009.

Wilber, Ken.

1977/1993. The spectrum of consciousness. 20^th Anniversary Edition. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

1980/1996. The Atman project B a transpersonal view of human development. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

1981/1996. Up from Eden B a transpersonal view of human evolution. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

1983/2005. A sociable God B (1983 subtitle: a brief introduction to a transcendental sociology), 2005 subtitle: toward a new understanding of religion. Boston: Shambhala.

1995/2000. Sex, ecology, spirituality B the spirit of evolution. 2^nd edition, Revised. Boston: Shambhala.

1996. A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala.

2000/2001. The eye of spirit B an integral vision for the world gone slightly mad. Boston: Shambhala.

The above seven books summarized in Francoise Hall, 2005b. AA Transpersonal View of War B War as a Substitute for Cosmo-centrism and Immortality during the Egoic Stage in the Development of Consciousness.@ November 5 (103 pages, unpublished).

Wilson, Edward. 1992/1999. The diversity of life. New York: W.W. Norton.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2005a. AAsk the Mosquitoes.@ March 19 (17 pages, unpublished).

World Wildlife Fund, 1999/2002. “Persistent organic Pollutants – Hand-me-down Poisons that threaten Wildlife and People.” World Wildlife Fund Global Toxic Initiative. Reprinted in the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Linkages Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1. February 1, 1999.

http://www.iisd.ca/journal/wwf.html. Updated January 18, 2002. Accessed March 7, 2009.

***