I The advent of Ecology
Ernst Haeckel, in 1866, had « the idea and privilege of naming the comprehensive science of the
relationship of the organism to its environment, in other terms, ecology.”
This field of study – which deals with what is “between” ; as well as what “ is” – developed as a
logical follow-up to the enlightened observations of Lamarck and Darwin (2) linking the living to a
process of successive transformation over time: Evolution. Haeckel refers to this link and the
approach to the question of exchanges between beings and their environment at a given moment.
Without explicit reference, he describes the economics of Nature.
The combination Lamarck-Darwin-Haeckel produces a shock that the dominant planetary civilization,
caught up in monotheism, is unable to absorb. The specter of Evolution, contrary to accepted
cosmogonies, whereby an omnipotent god created and rules the universe, is vigorously rejected.
Humanity must, at any cost, be deterred from the diabolic impulse to approach Nature. The “abovenature” concept, inherent to mankind since its existence is recurrent in the sacred writings, and,
supported by technological prowess and firm convictions, keeps Man at bay from his environment.
Isabelle Stengers places the origin of the word nature in ancient Greece when observers of the
environment aspire to remove it from the domain of the gods and superstition, and to develop and
teach an objective science. Augustin Berque asserts that such “placing at a distance” increases as
technological developments such as microscopes, telescopes, tools and machines emerge and act as a
screen between man and his milieu... At the time when the notion of ecology spread and became a
scientific discipline ( during the middle of the XXth century) the idea of dominating Nature: assuring
food production, feeding the population and putting an end to poverty is at its peak. After the second
world war, a flurry of publicity for products stemming from the chemical and agricultural machine
industry, reporting that all is under control , promises a bright future to a dumbfounded population .
Newly born ecology finds itself in direct opposition to the prevailing belief which still considers the
planet as a surface for unlimited, infinite exploitation. The scientific world, through methodical
observation of the ecosystems, reveals their fragility and, amidst general indifference, proposes the
hypothesis of diminishing ecological resources. This revolutionary and traumatizing idea gives
humanity a new responsibility: guaranteeing life on the planet. Exploiting the territory modifies the
environment. Everything functions according to a closed system with permanent recycling of the
biomass, water and all elements under classical or new configurations. Despite this information,
related to both the function and the fragility of ecosystems, land management transforms the
environment to the point of rendering it sterile, unproductive or toxic. The disappearance of numerous
species representing biological diversity contributes an additional element for concern. The Planetary
Garden, an enclosure, urgently needs a new gardener. Some voices can be heard which plead for the
need for change. But the slogans of 1968 and the speeches of René Dumont in 1974 fail to divert a
movement out of control . Productivism, consumerism, firmly based on the Bible, deploy an arsenal of
seduction and propaganda: ecology must be banished from minds under the influence of rash and
sectarian science, for the sake of the Stock Market. And for some, of course, the Market means life.
Here again a state of emergency exists. For a concept to undermine both beliefs and the current
economy is intolerable. By observing the “phenomenon of ecology” at a distance , it becomes evident
that it is not simply a logical product of scientific methodology but indeed an overwhelming concept
in the history of the ties between Man and Nature. It is the beginning of a new era whose importance
and depth society has only begun to realize.
II How to get rid of ecology
This profound importance – useful in the development of a true political project – does not elude
certain observant detractors. In order to save the consumer market, ecological thought must be
eradicated . Two campaigns emerge in this direction without completely demolishing the sense of
ecological urgency: a sensation shared by humanity in the helpless state of facing its own destruction.
The first consists of installing the ecologist in the role of an ayatollah advocating rigorous “radical
ecology” (“écologie radicale”) .Luc Ferry views this purism as a fascist derivative, underlining the fact
that the ecological movement was born in Germany, and in certain aspects recuperated by Hitler. The
other, more common idea consists of depicting the ecologist as an incoherent, ridiculous personage,
incapable of comprehending economical and social reality. Only the third campaign – in full action at
the writing of this paper – is fully in charge of the project to eradicate ecology as a management
procedure for the planet. After the derision, the assimilation to the delirium of childish poets or
dangerous partisans, ecology – supposedly released at last from long isolation- undergoes an ultimate
assault by its detractors: recuperation or “how to eliminate a cumbersome, intrusive, recurrent
evidence”, contrary to all growth options. Can one, furthermore, contradict scientific observation,
proven correct time and again about global warming, the loss of diversity and all other conclusions
stemming from careful study without loss of face? How can one squelch a line of thought defended by
those opposed to the productivist system, which promises the solution to humanity’s problems, other
than by merging it in the system, hence assuring permanent elimination.
Once the ecological line of thought becomes inevitable, the strategy consists of establishing
alternatives to antiglobalisation propositions: to avoid by all means the slightest perspective of degrowth. Here begins the development of a vocabulary of recuperation: all henceforth takes place in the
name of sustainable growth – in other words of growth itself. Economists are working seriously on the
problem. The principle result of the Kyoto summit conference, the most consensual, insane and
perverse for anyone knowledgeable in stock market mechanics, bears the name of “the right to
pollute.” Pollution is not a problem, since the act of polluting itself brings in financial returns. An
enterprise which produces greenhouse gases (to name only one element of pollution) reaches a
threshold – established by whom (?) – and purchases from an enterprise with a positive pollution quota
a compensatory credit permitting further pollution. This exchange of rights, transformed into stock
market value, necessitates an important volume of transactions in order to be lucrative. Hence, in a
year when the consumption of products producing these gases diminishes, the stock value for the right
to pollute falls. This process demonstrates how a tax established to limit pollution in fact only
maintains it.
III The Green-business
At no point is the human dilemma in the planetary garden faced, but all is done to create the illusion.
First of all: communication. The first step taken by pro- sustainable development adverts consists in
setting up a communications system of words and pictures, especially pictures ( to create an esthetic
impression of planetary disorder ), wonderfully tragic photographs, seen from the sky or elsewhere.
Books must be written, speeches made in order to display good intentions, to change the climate :
“we will overcome”….. The technology of the XXIst century is under the auspices of sustainable
development. The “Grenelle Conferences” on the Environment – whose positive aspect consists of
official recognition of the ecological situation– participates in confusing the issue by pinpointing
minor environmental issues such as insulation in houses, selective garbage collection, and water
conservation. These are obvious civic acts that all inhabitants of the Earth should instinctively
accomplish. Meanwhile, it becomes possible to peacefully carry on immense pollution, destruction of
landscape and of human society on the planet. All energy is concentrated on the automobile industry,
the building of highways, the massive cultivation of agro ethanol, more and more spreading of
pesticides and fertilizers, the use of GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms), the launching of nuclear
programs, etc.
A single rule exists: “are returns generated or not?” If so, there is no counter indication for choosing a
solution that leads millions of humans to misery or death. If not, why waste the time to look for a
solution, even if lives are improved or saved?
Ecology is finally gagged, attended to, under market control. It has entered the liberal system via its
own “merchandisation”. It emerges purified, filtered and emptied of its detestably precautionary
intentions, becoming a machine suitable for business. Such is the goal of the capitalist cartel in order
to sack the planet with violence unequaled in the history of humanity.
In the “sixth circle” of “The Coming Insurrection”, the Invisible Committee draws a vicious portrait of
the new economical goal: “Ecology is not only the logic of a total economy; it is the new morality of
Capital. The system’s state of internal crisis and the rigorous selection going on are such that we will
need new criteria to operate such sorting. From one era to the next, the idea of virtue was never more
than an invention of vice. (….) Tracking, transparency, certification, eco-taxes, environmental
excellence, water police, all gives us an idea of the coming state of ecological emergency. Everything
is permitted to a power structure that authorizes itself to act as the representative of Nature, health and
well-being.(…)Those who claim that generalized self-control will spare us from an environmental
dictatorship are lying: the one will make the other’s bed and we’ll have both.”
The environmental dictatorship to which the Invisible Committee refers is based solely upon the moral
aspect of ecology. The system is established upon this single base, upon which all is permitted. But
the potential dictatorship inherently possesses the weakness of constructions that ignore the
complexity of their components: beings and behavior: it relies upon the unique credo of returns upon
investment, the life line of dictatorship. It is therefore prone to the same risk of collapse. Without a
doubt, we are not confronted here with an ideological dictatorship but with the dictatorship of money
disguised as a means for saving humanity. In any event ecology, by its very complexity, constantly
provides proof that no dictatorship resulting from materialism is fit for the unpredictable function of
human beings. It is obvious that if man stands a chance to adapt to ecological complexity in order to
insure his continued existence on the planet, this will take place in an empirical manner stemming
from on-site experience, step by step, and not via an arsenal of directive , contradictory and often
dangerous texts produced by technocratic leadership. Green- business is merely a logical
manifestation of the dictatorship of money. It is not to be forgotten that money is not a value, but a
counter-value. No more. The accumulation of bank notes, stocks, bonds and other items of
speculation, doomed to failure and collapse will , in becoming useless waste, attend to all who
pretend life needs a price tag. What the “Green World” calls “values” has no ecological sense.
Compatibility between ecology and finance is not only an illusion, it is a pathetic maneuver in which
humanity, placed in an infantile framework, resists breaking away from a system which it naively
sees as a protection and model for its way of thought.
IV Planetary consciousness
Conflict in interest covers human history and inevitably ends in the victory of the cunning, the
strongest, the most barbarian. A perfectly identified enemy lurks on the boundaries of a country, or a
neighborhood: someone who reasons differently, believes differently, and, due to these cultural
variations , represents danger. Obscurantism, favored by the maneuvers of those in power, keeps the
planet in an ever active state of partition. Fear and division facilitate ruling. Our leaders use and
misuse these techniques to the point of casting suspicion on the most essential preventive measures.
However, unseen by these strategists, a federative movement bonds, more strongly every day, the
Arab and the Jew, the poet and the banker, the poor and the rich, unexpectedly embarked on the same
boat- the planet. A planetary consciousness, born from ecological thought, is overturning the
relationship between societies and individuals. A form of solidarity, inherent to the conditions of life
on Earth, takes root, beyond the traditional conflicts in interest. All become part of an ecosystem,
bound to one another, and ultimately to the planet.
Humanity brutally discovers that a common enemy globally threatens the earth’s population. This
enemy does not lurk at the frontiers, is not hidden in form of nebulous neighborhood terrorism or at
the limits of the stratosphere in a spaceship from another galaxy. No. Humanity discovers that it
nurtures its enemy from within and is committing suicide.
Such a discovery sheds gloom. The past is not glorious and the future non-existent. Taking refuge in
the present, humanity clicks on computers to voice its emotion at the fresh, undigested news tossed out
by the media. This, however, is useless. It is passive acceptance of a movement no one can stop. Fear
arises .Planetary consciousness leaves humanity speechless. While life conditions degenerate and birth
rates increase, it roams in its garden, lost in the fog of its beliefs, the doldrums of its economy and
faced with the well defined limits of its territory, at a loss where to begin.
V Strategies of Fear
Apathy benefits some and conditions others to a “wait and see” policy. It paralyses action, discourages
adventurous spirits and ties any undertaking to financial return. The increasingly precarious
employment situation of the active population places the individual in the uncomfortable position of
potentially losing the little he possesses should he participate in any concerted resistance. An obedient
herd of sheep are shorn according to the rules of maximum exploitation with no possibility for
rebellion. In public institutions – the university, for example- savings are sought at any price, no
matter what the needs for teaching or research, at the risk of seriously reducing efficiency. An
atmosphere of calm is infinitely preferable to debate, rash spirits are encouraged to shut up, and
surveillance by the ruling class accompanied by the menace of sanction spreads fear. Schools and
professional “lycées” , the ones to build an alternative project, at any risk, are likewise timidly
hesitant. Still worse, they have accepted in advance the unfair proposal for a change in status made by
the Ministry of Higher Education, (who is not their supervisory ministry). This proposal seeks to
separate teaching from research and introduces the scandalous notion that teaching is “punishment” for
poor research. Gérard Dessons, Professor of French literature at the University of Paris 8 , analyses the
situation in terms that should describe to the letter a “pilot establishment”: “What such a concept does
not take into account is that a teacher-researcher, if he is a researcher that teaches, does not teach
simply anything. He teaches his research. To disassociate the twin activities amounts to
instrumentalizing the teacher, assigning him a strictly communicational function. The university
fellow persuaded to do little research, and condemned to teach, teaches what? Something that a “true”
researcher has produced for him? This neglects the fact that beyond the point of his research, and, in a
fundamental way, the teacher-researcher teaches a method. He teaches how to do “research”, to
question the unknown, to innovate. The work of a teacher-researcher is relatively risky, since showing
what he does is associated to how he does it. He operates, so to speak, without no back-up. A school, a
university, a laboratory – any place where thought is in action – that abandons the risk of thinking is
on the decline. Partitioning, evaluation as a generalized process, the stigmatization of “good” and
“bad” , constant surveillance: all participate in the strategy of fear that infiltrates all fields and
structures of society, from the corporation to the school, from the farm to the world of art. The
strategy of fear pinpoints the lack of confidence society has in itself. Therein lies its weakness, and, as
a result, the front lines need enforcement. Ecology provides the perfect material. By spreading rumors
of impending catastrophe, disaster reasoning sets in, with sustainable development as an ideal, and
no change at the base. The system feeds on its own perversion, bred by repression and inspection. The
circle could be considered closed, condemned to play the same scenario over and over, with attempts
to change resulting only in ridiculous patching of the cracks.
But no. Not only are society’s observers – economists, scientists, philosophers – announcing the
coming downfall of the dominant structure, but society itself , aware of advancing change, is
modifying its view of the world, composing a vocabulary of expectation, and preparing a series of
questions, in a diffuse yet thoughtful way on the prospect of life on a planetary level.
VI The Ambient Alternative
While radical ecology , buttressed by its rigid principles attempts to resist, and the Green-business is
getting organized to take over the “bio” market, a third, unnamed path, that I term the ambient
alternative is emerging from a mixed bag of contradictory analyses, catastrophe assessments, vague
predictions, and authentic observations, experiences and research. Too many voices are audible in the
world for minds numbed by news and pictures not to realize that there may be some reality behind the
ecological discourse. Even if the complex mechanism of ecosystem exchange is poorly understood by
the majority, the feeling of intimate ties between near and far is sinking in, hidden from government,
forming a planetary association. The ambient alternative does not quite believe in degrowth, feels the
green- business is a bit too much, and, rather than expecting help from the elected body, is in a period
of expectation while considering the Butterfly Effect. The gestures that we make at a given point have
a repercussion on the other side of the world: all that we send into the atmosphere falls down again,
the wind pushes the clouds, the biosphere operates like the drum of a washing machine in which sea,
air river and water in the body are mingled. Indeed, there is no doubt that the garden is planetary, but
the alert mind recognizes the immensity of the question and wonders how to take care of this
particular garden.
There is no set reply. Humanity in confusion, alternately lulled to sleep by the media and woken up by
the crisis, tries out new life patterns in unknown terrain. All is to be invented, all seems
unexperimented. Ecology has been putting forth its management directives for forty years, but it is
only during the first ten years of this century that applying them and producing new ones has been a
topic. On a political level, the ambient alternative has created an unexpected shuffling. Left and right
engage in a ridiculous ping-pong match which the ambient alternative should by no means referee.
Why propose a solution for development since it is not the issue? While all political formations
continue cross talk about the same traditional models of speculation, the ambient alternative seeks
immediate solutions of a valid, concrete nature. AMAPs (“Associations pour le Maintien d’une
Agriculture Paysanne” – Community Supported Agriculture) can be considered simple, local and
economically efficient solutions to the problem of supplying healthy produce. AMAPs are a
demonstration of reduced production/distribution circuits which cut the ecological (or global ) cost of
consumer goods. They furnish varied food products, in keeping with the season, of excellent quality at
a reasonable price. They are compatible with a balanced diet and thus favor good health. They are an
identified yet non-existent expression in the ecological vocabulary since they cannot be voiced in the
language of the governing power. They are representative of a larger set of new values –quality of
food, air, water, soil as well as public services and the means of sharing common wealth and
production, etc. which form a true political project. Alain Lipeitz’s remark that “The world economy
produces too much for too many insolvent people, and produces poorly by putting too much pressure
on the Earth” resumes the situation by pointing out the absurdity of current production circuits. But he
points out that undemocratic solutions have appeared as crisis solutions in the course of history and
warns against a rise in State control which could potentially profit from a crisis to further its power
and police. At the same time, he denounces the drift of “planification ” (planisme), a technocratic
instrument of authoritarian regimes guided by total confidence in science: the increasingly firm belief
that Nature can be managed. The ambient alternative measures the dangers of “planification”, a
product of worn out schemes for stimulus. It views from a distance the exchange of millions of
Euros, the launching of a state loan, the transfusions for the banks and certain industries – automobile,
nuclear, and agro ethanol - the activities of the world stock market. It listens with half an ear to the
radio that advertizes the benefits of certain insurance policies, the interest rates for certain investments,
the miracle of returns. The ambient alternative turns away from all of this. It is not concerned. I am
invited to give speeches and participate in debates by schools of agriculture, art, architecture and
universities in Europe and other continents. Concerns are all oriented towards one point: how to
maintain an increasing human population on a limited territory, the planet. This question, asked a
thousand times for the past half-century with no acceptable answer, is more pertinent than ever and
increasingly fraught with the pathos of resignation: the task is impossible.
VII The abandon of the Cartesian project
In this beginning of the century, the people of the earth are gambling with their future. Either a true
mode of management suitable for posterity is discovered or destruction waits. The effort required is
not to be underestimated – not to invent a new economy – the experts are attending to the matter – but
to look at the world in a different way. Technology is not the question. The question is the cultural
under pinning. To declare that the future is now based on a new paradigm is not an intellectual game.
We live in an exceptional period which requires redefinition in the cosmos, and questioning such as
humanity has probably never experienced. Of course, this humanity has just been born. On the scale of
geological time it is a recent transformation in History, a nano-second on the calendar, not quite
certain where it lives.
Nevertheless, its intellectual history has a time span sufficient to produce numerous cosmogonies,
fanciful visions of the creation of the world, incoherent and poetic. If one seeks to place ecology on
the scale of world visions, one finds convergence only in animist civilizations where the respect for
nature depends entirely upon superstition rather than knowledge. Animism places human beings on the
same level as other living things; “modern civilization” keeps them at the distance described by
Stengers, Berque or Descola , which infiltrates the vocabulary of the ecological movement , born in
the west, a territory where Nature is “managed”. The word “environment” used to describe what
surrounds us, assumes that human beings do not belong to this entity; they are beyond, above,
elsewhere and not “with.” The Ministry of the Environment –Ministry of surroundings –sees living
things and landscape as a complex entity, subject to analysis for the purpose of measurement and not
as a life space in which Man, as all other living things, is immerged.
Hence the old Cartesian project for managing Nature lives on. Reinforced by scientism (total belief in
science) and absolute confidence in technological capabilities, it continues to confront Man with
Nature, wild, tamable or hostile. It tests its own influence by estimating that it can control the climate,
carbon dioxide production, the green gas effect and builds a technical vocabulary aimed at total
domination, as if naming means mastering. The G8 decision, in July 2009 in Aquila – to reduce by
half carbon production by 2050-is accompanied by a ridiculous injunction: no global warming
superior to 2° C will be tolerated. Lula, upon declaring the G8 inept to judge the state of the planet,
could have added that the eight richest countries had attained a degree of self satisfaction such that
they were no longer credible. Indeed, in order to embark on a serious policy for the survival of
humanity on earth, we must climb down from the artificial observatory built “above Nature”, a space
for experiments, management and market. We must be willing to immerse ourselves, to accept
ourselves as part of nature, to revise our position in the universe, and to no longer place ourselves
above or at the center, but rather within and with. The Invisible Committee states that “there is no
environmental catastrophe. The environment itself is the catastrophe” and adds “What makes the crisis
desirable is that in the crisis the environment ceases to be the environment. We are forced to
reestablish contact, albeit a fatal one, with what’s there, to rediscover the rhythms of reality. What
surrounds us is no longer a landscape, a panorama, a theater, but rather it is what we have to inhabit,
something we should be made of, and something we can learn from. ( ).” The position of immersion
– undoubtedly the most difficult to assume since it requires cultural change and true humility – must
accompany the material and technical conditions necessary for the birth of a political project for the
survival of humanity on the planet. The material and technical conditions are at our disposal – at least
in principle. To make use of them requires political courage to this day unfound in State leadership.
The only directives in Europe – showcase of the capitalist liberal West - seen as a project for the
management of society come from the powerful lobbies grouped in Brussels. Lobbying aggressiveness
replaces the political project for which society in general has such an urgent need.
On the other hand, the green-business only maintains legitimacy via stock market mechanisms,
intrinsically without ethics and morality. No matter what attempts for regulation are made, the stock
market accelerates the process of imbalance of wealth and the deterioration of the environment, in
other words, the conditions of life on the planet. To ignore human beings is a basic rule of the Stock
market game. Today, the Market is a powerful machine, with no compunction, insensitive to the
destruction for which it is responsible.
Contrary to other disasters – pandemics, wars – the Market peacefully operates in full view .Human
beings, blinded by a well- orchestrated process, close their eyes and offer no criticism. Are the stock
market quotations not given hourly on the radio, at the same time as the weather report and offers for
insurance? Who could imagine that methodic media hype could be a relay for a machine that kills?
Muzzling the lobbies and the Stock Market: this is the task for the generations to come so that life will
not be a game of chance and necessity but an arrangement with the complexity of the living. What sort
of project could be immediately set up to combat the infernal duo of green- business/stock quotations?
VIII – Resistance: the hypothesis of changing interest
History has taught us that crisis attracts tyranny, fascism, and tightening up of control to satisfy
reactionary spirits. We are at that point. It is therefore necessary to wait until the ridiculous rise of
power of the police state accompanied by a swing to the right in society has reached its peak. The
existing order, built on fear, will then falter, allowing a social project to be undertaken. The only valid
method is to understand humanity , move forward towards the living, and attempt to improve
conditions. This requires planetary correlation and time. It cannot brutally enter into effect without
risking violent opposition from those who today have power and arms. Hence the need for resistance.
A new system of control, in fragmentary dispersion throughout the world, must establish the basis for
tomorrow’s human being. Resistance, in my interpretation, covers all plans of action aligned with a
political program built upon ecological urgency, or, in any case, the way we look at this today.
Obviously, knowledge about behavior and exchanges between the living will evolve depending upon
variations and preservation of biological energies. Resistance relies upon the ambient alternative for
experimenting with new management techniques for territory and society. It is based upon a planetary
consciousness which defines the Planetary Garden and the role of the gardener .It turns its back upon
strategies based on fear, and detours the green-business view of development, favoring exchange and
sharing of wealth instead. By gradually abandoning the Cartesian project for the domination of Nature,
it favors a dialogue at the heart of living matter, accompanied by true knowledge of beings and
tolerance towards the inventiveness of life. Such is the hypothesis of the shift of interest silently
operating in a society surrounded by an agitated world. It is inaudible and requires only willpower and
tactful intelligence. The shift of interest is accompanied by new values whereby goods and their use
as well as methods for attainment and sharing replace the accumulation of wealth by a minority. Thus
what some call Gross Domestic Gladness (GDG) replaces the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which is
today’s policy line. The shift of interest must be progressive. It will take time and education of the
masses.However,it represents the only reasonable solution to the drama faced by populations today.
The movement implies substitution and not violence as an escape from the crisis. The shift of interest
is not a coincidence. It already operates in more enlightened societies. However, the principle of a
gentle swing in the direction toward curing the profound malaise of humanity is only a hypothesis.
The pressure applied by the ruling powers, blind to human beings and their suffering, may lead to a
more devastating conclusion: a planetary conflict in which genuine ecology and green-business
confront each other violently. No matter how the crisis evolves, the shift of interest continues: human
society modifies “conspicuous consumption ” (or “Veblen goods”) in a progressive manner. Such is
evolution.
In a publication that discusses the balance of wealth on the planet, Hervé Kempf supports the point of
view of the economist Veblen. In the XIXth century, Veblen explains how “conspicuous
consumption” weighs upon the economy, making it possible to estimate production and storage of
“consumable goods.” He maintains that a social class, at no matter what level, longs for the consumer
good used by the class immediately above it. In spite of class leveling, the distribution between rich
and poor, separated by an ever growing gap, operates in exactly the same way today. Changing
“conspicuous consumption” by shifting interest for material goods towards immaterial goods ( for
example increased knowledge, reclassification of the environment, health improvement ) could lead
towards planetary ecological management. To be invented is an economy capable of running society
and its exchanges on the base of new interests, which do not take profit return into account and are
freed from the banks. This economy should not lose sight of a global vision for both individuals and
the community. Such a new economy is in direct opposition to that which establishes the rules today
and which will undoubtedly remain in power until the termination of the security oriented regimes
established everywhere on the planet. The shift of interest is content to observe. However, change in
“Veblen” consumption has already taken place: the success of bio products is proof. The greenbusiness transforms this into market economy. Fortunately , all is not for sale: the quality of life,
laughter, friendship, human warmth (or contempt) are immeasurable. So much the better. How will a
society turned towards an ecological and humanist political program operate?
IX Melting money
Although Veblen denounces an understandable human attitude he does not mention the method of
satisfying “conspicuous consumption”. Should one borrow, which implies debt and, in consequence,
loans, placements and speculation? The economist Bernard Lietaer agrees with the ecologists: no
serious management of human society can be imagined without taking into account the long term.
However, all of today’s economy, political decisions and legislative bodies function on the short
term.”Let us begin with the fact that today,” says Lietaer,” it is corporations that decide what we eat,
how we dress, get around, live; the energies and technologies we use, etc. It is neither government nor
the citizen that makes the decisions. I therefore conclude that as long as corporations are programmed
for short term thinking, we are blindly headed towards a series of catastrophes.”
Lietaer assumes that corporations will not head spontaneously towards this type of management, and
that long term management is impossible under today’s set of rules. Only financial motivation can
draw society towards the desired solution. Lietaer’s example merits quotation in extenso:
“Let us assume that we live in a world where only two types of investment are available: short term
and long term. For example, one type could be investment in a pin plantation, in which the value of
each pin would be 100 Euros after 10 years; the other in an oak plantation worth 1000 Euros after 100
years. These values are adjusted to inflation, so that the figures are comparable. A rational investor
should have no preference for one or the other: he can cut his pins every 10 years and obtain 1000
Euros after 100 years or the same financial result as with the oak plantation. Now, let us introduce the
money factor. Suppose that we use a conventional currency (Euros, dollars, etc.) with, let us say, an
interest rate of 5%. The value of a ten- year -old pine in 10 years is, calculated today, 61, 39 Euros.
Indeed, if I place 61, 39 Euros today for 10 years with an interest rate of 5%, I obtain exactly 100
Euros. However, by the same rational calculation, the oak worth 1000 Euros in 100 years, calculated
today, is only worth 7, 60 Euros. In any society in which conventional currency with a positive interest
rate is used, oaks would be cut down and only pins planted. This metaphor perfectly illustrates how a
conventional monetary system automatically programs all financial decisions on short term.”
Lietaer proposes the use of a new form of currency which he calls “complimentary” with “demurrage”,
in other words a negative rate of interest equivalent to the “demurrage” or parking charge. Assuming a
rate of demurrage of 5% annually, the pine, calculated today, is worth 167 euros while the oak,
calculated in the same way, is worth 168 000 Euros. Whoever makes such a calculation invests in the
long term.
This demonstration has proven true over the course of history. The periods of power in Egypt as well
as during the age of the cathedrals coincide with periods of negative interest currency. The
“demurrage” principle was born in France with the first railroads. Companies obtained payment for
unused railroad wagons on the tracks (parking). But the technique goes back to the currency system in
the Nile Valley. A farmer who produced more than his needs deposited the surplus in the local temple.
A scribe kept a record (ten bags of wheat, for example). Should the farmer wish to take back his
produce after a year, nine bags were returned to him, the tenth being payment to the guardians
(demurrage or parking). On the other hand, he could use the calculated value of the ten bags inscribed
on a piece of pottery or stone called an “ostrakon” as currency . Bernard Lietaer suggests calling the
complementary planetary currency with a negative interest rate a “Terra.” Such a procedure
encourages discounting rather than saving. It favors reinvestment over accumulation or placement and,
contrary to stock market trading, revitalizes the economy. Several complementary currencies have
been invented and put into use in various countries. Some operate on the basis of exchange (services
by the hour, SEL,-Systèmes d’Echange Locaux or Local Exchange Systems- SOL –Society for
Organized Learning - etc.). None have succeeded in replacing the monetary systems in force today.
Perhaps it would be wise to begin thinking about what would be better adapted to the ecological
management of the planet. Tomorrow’s currency is not a question of the dominating currency (dollar,
euro, yen, euro-yen) but of the philosophy of exchange and sharing necessary to survive. Attempts to
establish exchanges that are free of charge, similar in some ways to the social security system,
demonstrate how this type of transaction “places everyone on an equal footing.” Bernard Lietaer’s
proposal addresses only the exchange process whereby the value (wheat) and the counter-value
(Ostrakon, Terra) lead to long term management which protects the economy from crisis. Reason is in
favor of such ecological management which can only be applied to the long term. But it does not
permit the definition of a political project that makes it useful and necessary to resort to melting
money. It is to be noted that Bernard Lietaer, when dealing with economy and crisis, uses a vocabulary
related to landscape: a pin for short term, an oak for long term.
X The symbiotic man
A global system of construction must be invented. The arrival of ecology in the history of the
relationship between Man and Nature leads to a complete revision of human behavior, from the
individual to the collective. Technology such as the printing press in the XVth century and industry in
the XIXth century was responsible for changes in society . These can justifiably be called
“revolutions” but they did not modify the notion of domination of Nature by Man. On the contrary,
they reinforced it. A step further back must be taken to the time when a nomadic society, by
becoming sedentary, breaks off with “tradition” and views the relationship with Nature as other than
hunting and culling , thereby establishing a comprehensive dialogue : the birth of the garden. The first
garden, placed in the historical context of the Man-Nature relationship, is a paradigm: a vision of the
world. The first ecological garden, although impossible to establish precisely, is at the beginning of a
new millennium when humanity sees a fresh vision of the world. We are at this point, and
opposition is helpless to combat this new paradigm. A mere few million years separate the early stages
of the upper Paleolithic period and the XXIst century. Of what significance are they compared to the
hundreds of millions of years necessary to bring the planet to today’s state? In the calendar of life,
Man has just been born. He experiments, makes mistakes, discovers his brain of which he uses only
one eighth (what does he do with the remaining seven?), screams, weeps and complains about a
temporary acne rash. Each growth spurt brings a spurt of conscience. We are, indeed, at the crucial
moment. Ecological thinking not only demonstrates how the economics of management are closely
tied to the survival of the species and the quality of the substrate . Not content with simply offering a
comprehensive method for managing diversity (the planetary garden) such a thought pattern
conditions our future, and reveals the finitude of our territory: a revelation which must serve as a
guide for an entire political project. The biomass, water, territorial surface: are all limited. Gain or
loss take place on such a small scale that one can reason in infinitely minute quantities with no
significant modification of surface or volume. There are two urgent questions:
-how to recycle our waste in a non-extensible area?
-how to regulate demography on this same area?
Symbiotic man should, ideally, return the energy he removes to the environment, like a tree whose
leaves are produced from solar energy and restored to the soil as nourishment (humus).What humus
can our civilizations extract from industry to serve life instead of harming it? The undergrowth in a
forest is life while nuclear waste is death. My symbiotic man is not identical to the one described by
Joël de Rosnay (17) but he uses the same planetary network, the same “backdrop”. However, instead
of developing into a Cybiont – half human, half machine- via technological communication ,
symbiotic man moves ahead via increasingly refined understanding of life on earth. Knowledge about
biological diversity, its use and need for protection in the evolutionary process makes recycling
possible by exercising judicious influence upon the causes of transformation at the right time and
place .
Symbiosis implies total interdependence between two beings or two biologically bound systems.
Humanity depends entirely upon the diversity it exploits but, in the course of development, we are at a
point where the environment itself – hence diversity – depends upon humanity. We are at a paroxysm
of interdependence such that the disappearance of one element suffices for another to vanish.
Symbiotic man derives his name from this reversible dependence. For the first time in history
emerging humanity discovers that a false maneuver tumbles both poor and wealthy over the same
precipice. Symbiotic man, without taking into account the consequences, establishes a basis for
genuine solidarity on a planetary scale. It has never been more urgent to teach diversity, which we
exploit incessantly and about which we know essentially nothing. For symbiotic Man the knowledge
of the living – plants, animals, substrate - goes hand in hand with a better knowledge of his
functioning, complexity, and cultural diversity. Without such an association of knowledge, where one
discipline interacts with another, all will be left to scientific specialists behind impenetrable partitions.
Symbiotic Man sets up a hierarchy of values for a political project. The primary Ministry of symbiotic
Man’s ideal government is, indeed, that of knowledge.
The Ministry of knowledge operates on all levels of thought refinement, and on all strata of society. It
allows the most needy to comprehend the mechanisms of Symbiotic Man. Demographic control is a
part of this. Although it may have seemed an “inhuman” and violent policy to impose one child per
family in Mao’s China – upon a people largely undereducated, indeed, illiterate – it becomes possible
to suggest to this same people at a higher level of consciousness, to choose their path for survival.
Symbiotic Man is a part of the reflection on the ecological paradigm and its consequences.
__________________________________________________________________________________
_
For references, see French text