Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Financial Collapse / Katrina

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Financial Collapse / Katrina
  • Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:12:39 -0800

Warning: verbiage ahead.

David Travis wrote:
This is a rather ironic interpretation of Katrina,
You've given a nice assessment of the causes of the Katrina mess, but my point was not that FEMA was the cause; it was that it was useless. You've said "a lack of coordinated centralized planning" prevented a decent response. Precisely. Centralized systems at that scale are too hierarchically complex and rigid to respond intelligently. But I don't want to get stuck on FEMA; there are thousands more examples of large-system failure and distributed system agility.
How hilarious to be "neo-con for a day!" But an observation that economies are like ecosystems is not a value judgment that corporatism is good. Makes a good straw man, though. But the Social Darwinism stuff seemed a bit much.

"our economy" has virtually destroyed our planet, has exterminated and
enslaved entire cultures, and has managed to become one of the most inefficient,
self-destructive, and inhumane resource allocation and management systems ever devised

You miss a critical point: compared to what? And I mean in the real world; in theory, perfect communism or socialism would be great.

Look at the centralized alternatives to a distributed economic system: the USSR and its satellites in Eastern Europe, China, North Korea and so on. Repression and destruction of human rights on a scale, duration, and severity unequaled anywhere in the West. Cosmic blunders of 5-year plans. And their ecosystems are vastly more devastated. I loathe corporate capitalism, but if the USSR or China or any centralized state dominated the planet the way corporatism has, it would be a lot worse.

I would be genuinely interested to hear why anyone would consider it to be a
good candidate for dealing with rapid change.
How could you argue otherwise? Our culture's rate of change has been astronomical, and our economic system has managed to deal with it for centuries (the USSR collapse comes to mind, again). Again, compared to what? There are hundreds of dead cultures that failed to adapt to a fraction of the change this one's dealt with. Often simple immigration has killed a culture. Ours thrives on it. Distributed systems can learn. Centralized ones can only react and plan.

The so-called "free market" is often vicious and destructive as well as cooperative and opportunity creating, just like an ecosystem. It's not an analogy I've leapt into; it's the assessment of a few hundred books and thousands of papers. Economies and cultures are complex adaptive systems, vernacularly called ecosystems. Centralizing their control intelligently is beyond our abilities, even if we are wise enough to know which direction we want them to go, which is doubtful. Sometimes regulation works (the early FDA); sometimes it's a disaster (the current FDA). I don't see more government as an answer to corporate control; they are both part of a systems problem, and we are young at understanding systems.
An ecosystem might "adapt" to stress with "positive" things, such as
symbiosis, but it may also respond with increased incidents of epidemic disease, population
decline, and even species loss.
I don't like the conclusion, either. But just 'cuz it's ugly doesn't make it untrue. Species loss in an economic ecosystem is analogous to businesses disappearing (or in a cultural system, ideas dying out). Population decline? I hope so--we need the whole planet to develop the birthrate of Europe, or slower, and feedback from expensive resources (as in Europe) works better than government condom programs. Uh-oh, I'm a neo-con!

Like anyone, the neo-cons have a grain of truth; they've just taken it to an insane place.

When an ecosystem goes through an energy descent, it restabilizes at a different state, and that is traumatic for some communities and species. When we try to avoid these natural processes, we just put off and exacerbate the reckoning. This doesn't mean "never help the poor," but it means that local, distributed solutions are liable to work best. A good example is the Green Revolution; a well-intentioned centralized plan to replace thousands of local crops with a handful of oil-dependent ones, and it created about 2 billion mouths now likely to starve, while "saving" a small fraction of that many people. There's real Social Darwinism for you. Natural selection can't be avoided for long.

We are infants in the discovery of how economies and ecosystems function, but they are very similar. I think the observation that economies behave like ecosystems will give us enormous power to devise more just economies. Bloated corporations that gut mountainsides seem like kids discovering fire: it's too much power to handle at first, and you risk burning down the house, until eventually you learn how it works and use it well. But the learning, for us, is on the scale of centuries.

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page