Changing Values

A community is held together by shared values, beginning with the lives of its members, and extending to what makes those members happiest. Happiness (and survival) requires resources, which, while being consumed, are not available to anyone – or anything – else.

If the definition of the community is extended to include more members, the community must either make more resources available (such as acquiring the resources already used by the new members), get more use out of the resources already consumed (increase efficiency), or settle for a lower level of happiness. If the amount of happiness is increased, statistical trends indicate that consumption – and the amount of available resources – will need to increase exponentially to compensate.

If the community defines itself more restrictively, then it may view former members as competitors or even resources to be "consumed." This could result in an increase in happiness, an increase in longevity (the amount of time that resources can last), or both, by decreasing the happiness and longevity of the members it shed. A more humane way to shed members is to send them to other areas, voluntarily or otherwise, which has the potential benefit of providing access to additional resources.

Changing values is especially costly if a community reclassifies someone or something it typically consumes (uses and throws away) as a member. Slaves and species used for food are obvious examples. The community's resource base must be redefined in fundamental ways that can fundamentally change how the community deals with itself and its environment. What was good is now evil, and what could be counted on to enhance happiness must either be replaced or happiness must be reduced. Understandably, a reduction in happiness (which is proportional to life expectancy) would be considered unacceptable by many people, so we could expect a lot of resistance to a such a change in values.

With humanity's ecological impact rising so high that it threatens the habitability of our planet, our values must change in such a way as to reduce that impact to a safe level, and this must happen soon – in much less than 20 years. Arguably, all of the alternatives are already being tried. Environmentalists are promoting the redefinition of community to include more of the biosphere (other species), while limiting population growth as a multiplier on individual impact/consumption; this potentially has the additional benefit of growing the resource base, especially when combined with efficiency-increasing measures. Those who favor restricting communities are promoting the "shedding" of members of the population, most without acknowledging the threat, by favoring perpetual warfare and declining working conditions as "others" either become slaves or die. Space enthusiasts are pushing for the settlement of other planets, which is the equivalent of humane population-shedding – though most of the places people might go are uninhabitable wastelands, just as the Earth is in danger of becoming.

Given the urgency of the task of reducing our ecological impact, the first two options have the best chance of working, while the third (space settlement) is at best a desperate insurance policy against total extinction. If all human life is valued, the second option must be ruled out, though it is arguably built into human nature (and some humans more than others). Unfortunately, the environmentalist's approach requires the most change, and is therefore prone to facing the most resistance – which it is getting.

For those of us who favor an emphasis on the environmentalist's approach, reducing resistance to it is critical. Based on this discussion, it should be clear that attempting to counter the resistance without addressing the associated values is likely doomed to failure.

Change

Political rhetoric for the rest of this year will likely be dominated by one concept: Change. Republicans under George Bush have ruled by fear, co-opting the terrorist threat to achieve their own political aims here and around the world. Backlash from their political rivals, the Democrats, has risen to counterbalance this strategy. The result has been almost total gridlock in the U.S. government, leaving critical issues unaddressed.

Recognizing that this situation cannot continue much longer, voters are likely to elect a new president who has the best chance of ending the standoff, and getting the gears of government working again. Historically, such standoffs have been ended by one political philosophy slightly if not totally dominating the other over the term of the associated party’s president. If this trend continues, we can expect liberal ascendancy over the next nine years.

I expect that this will mean a stop, if not a reversal, to the privatization of common resources that has been part of the Republican agenda. This will hopefully translate into less corruption – more control of the government by the people rather than organizations dedicated to using its power to plunder. With any luck, it will also mean more protection of the quality of the air, water, and habitats of other species which provide the renewable services everyone depends on.

Both political parties appear to be dedicated to reducing the country’s “dependency on foreign oil.” A positive result of this commitment would be an increase in the use of renewable energy sources, but I am concerned that any such result will be accompanied by the development of domestic non-renewable sources, resulting in more unsustainable consumption.