 As
regular readers of these pages know, I am predicting that, at some
point in this century, the large political and economic structures
(state governments and multi-national corporations) that currently
govern much of our lives will collapse, probably due to a combination
of total dysfunction in the new wired world and economic bankruptcy.
This will leave a vacuum that will be filled, I predict, by
community-based organizations.
I think we have seen a preview
of government dysfunction in Homeland Security (the largest
centrally-managed organization in the history of the planet), of the
kind of economic incompetence that will lead to large government
bankruptcy in the Bush administration, and of the superior
effectiveness of community-based organizations in the response to
Katrina and the other natural disasters that we have faced this year.
The
challenge is that we have become so used to relying on large central
governments and corporations to manage things for us, that we have lost
the knowledge of how to self-manage our own communities. My nine
articles on communities (list here, scroll down to the Community subheading) have focused mainly on the social management
of communities -- self-forming new communities and then getting along
with other members. Just as important will be the economic management
of these communities, and in particular the management of the
communities' resources.
When I speak of communities
I am not talking about housing subdivisions where people are thrown
together by serendipity, commuting needs and similar financial
wherewithal (and in some cases similar ethnicity). And I am not talking
about municipalities whose boundaries are the result of historical
accident or political convenience, and which are often as big as some
countries -- far beyond the limits of the rule of 150.
By community I mean a small, self-manageable group of people who have chosen
to live or make a life together. And I am talking about community in
its original sense of "those in common", equally with and by all -- an egalitarian society whose property is held in common, together.
How should such a community manage its 'commons', its shared resources?
Perhaps
the best answer to this question is to look at the rules that we use
today to manage resources. Economists would probably cite these rules
as follows:
- Acquire as many resources as you can at the
lowest possible cost. That means shrewdly or coercively buying
resource-rich land at far below its real value (often buying it before
that value has been realized). It also means beating up your suppliers
to get them to lower their prices, with the implication of
'commoditizing' as much as possible and exploiting suppliers (both
human and animal) to offer their minds and bodies at the lowest
possible price.
- As long as it doesn't impede your ability to
keep producing, sell as much as you can at the highest possible price
(which usually means to the most affluent buyers, regardless of need).
- Treat
all resources as infinite and expendable, and ignore 'externalities'
(costs that you are not absolutely required to pick up, even if that
means someone else will have to pay them). Assume that whenever a
resource gets scarce (and hence expensive), the 'market' will drive
suppliers to find more of it or invent an equivalent non-scarce source
of supply.
These rules are based on the assumption that we
live in a 'market economy', which of course we do not. Power and wealth
are used to distort markets to the advantage of the powerful and
wealthy, principally by bribing (no I don't think that's too harsh a
word) public officials to pass or rescind laws and to enforce or ignore
regulations that favour them and disadvantage others. The theoretical
role of governments is to intervene to ensure that the disadvantaged
have at least enough resources to live a healthy and comfortable life,
and to coordinate activities when individuals and smaller groups are
unable or unwilling to do so, though that role, at least in the US and
most of Earth's struggling nations, seems to be increasingly unpopular.
What
rules will a community-based society need to put in place to
effectively manage its resources when the existing central governments
and corporations crumble and are no longer in a position to act by the
above, or any, rules? I think, given enough time and through trial and
error communities will (re-)discover rules that work. But here, based
on a number of recent e-mail discussions with readers, is my first cut
at such a rule set:
- Each community should only have as many
people as it can support on its own, without having to rely on other
communities, or on the grid. People are the ultimate 'resource' in any
community, and they need to be self-managed just like any other
resource. Most animals self-limit their populations to the carrying
capacity of their natural community, so that the eco-system remains in
balance. We need to learn to do the same. Today, affluent communities
consume between 8 and 40 times the resources that their natural
resources can support, by using the resources of struggling nations and
communities desperate to sell whatever they can to provide basic
requirements of life, and we all consume far more than the land can
replenish each year, effectively stealing from future generations. This
is unsustainable and unfair, and has to cease.
- Each community
is responsible for managing its own resources in a way that is
indefinitely sustainable (without importing resources). There is
nothing wrong with trade, but to be resilient (unlike today's political
structures) communities need to be self-sufficient.
This will make communities healthier, and less vulnerable to
unpredictable events outside the community and to unscrupulous and
exploitative people both inside and outside the community.
- Each
community offers for export only resources that are surplus to its
sustainable needs. These surpluses will be minimal and generally
accidental. This economy offers no rewards for a larger per-person
footprint than is necessary for the community's members, and if all
communities are self-sufficient there is no reason for excess
production. But when clear surpluses do occur (e.g. due to an
exceptional growing season) those surpluses would be offered free of
charge to other communities.
- Each community imports only
luxuries it cannot reasonably produce itself. This isn't a
contradiction of rules #1 and 2. It means, for example, that those in a
temperate climate and those in a tropical climate might want to trade
apples for bananas. A free exchange, Internet-enabled, just for
variety. Don't think it's possible to live in a sub-polar climate
without importing necessities? The Inuit did it for centuries. All it
takes is a bit of ingenuity.
Nature
provides a near-perfect model of the use and value of these rules. It
will require a lot of innovation and study for communities to learn
from nature and (re-)learn the principles of bioregionalism.
Adhering to these simple rules could allow us to free ourselves from
thinking that the 'market economy', acquisitive culture, and an
'ownership society' are the only way to live. The sooner we start,
perhaps with Model Intentional Communities, the better. |
6:27:25 PM 
|
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
