-
Immediate consequences
-
No poverty & peace
-
More consequences
-
Consequence of not applying the concepts
<
>
|
Splitting of the socio-economic power
When a consumer goes shopping on the “biosustainable” market, he takes the socio-economic power apart. He takes it apart in the social power of income of the producer and the economic power of expense of the consumer. The producer gives shape to society. Look around you. All the forms and volumes you see are there because producers have been paid to create them. Since producers form society, their power is a social one With the economic power of expense, the consumer maintains ways of living that keep his environment sound by accounting with scientific proofs for the ecological quality of his purchases. With the combined economic powers of their expenses, consumers can safeguard the integrity of Nature. |
Ethical currents in the economy
In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, integrity is defined as: 1: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY 2: an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS 3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS Since integrity is defined not only as something, which is sound and complete but also as having sound moral principles, the integrity of anything can be kept only with integrity. With the economic power of his expense the consumer will sustain ethical currents in the entire ethical market economy, out of interests. |
|
The demand of consumers for products with the highest ecological value and thus with the highest efficiency in utilising resources could cause an increase in efficiency in the utilization of resources in our ways of living of one percent, rather quickly.
One percent increase in this efficiency in the lives of billions of consumers will have as a result that so much more is produced with the same input as today that there will be more than enough for everybody on this planet to live well. |
There will thus be no more poverty. People will therefore be sharing compatible levels of well being, so they will be sharing satisfaction. People who share satisfaction live in peace.
This will be true particularly when an optimum efficiency in the utilization of natural resources in mankind's ways of living has been achieved. |
Emigration from industrialised countries to non industrialised ones
Assume that the "biosustainable" market becomes quickly the favourite market of a majority of consumers in the industrialised world. The producers of the industrialised countries cannot immediately satisfy the demand for products to maintain ways of living that keep nature in perfect condition. The non-industrialised countries can relatively quickly develop industries which' production processes leave the environment unblemished. These countries can do it faster than the industrialised ones, because the latter ones have to transform or undo their existing industries first. Moreover, the costs in money and resources of transforming an industry are most likely higher than the costs of creating a new one. In the short to medium term, the non-industrialised countries can therefore be more competitive in the market of products for ways of living in harmony with Nature than the industrialised ones.
There will thus be a flux of former immigrants out of the industrialised world back to their countries of origin. In particular the allochthonous who obtained a good education will be motivated to go back. They will have good opportunities to make a successful career in the countries creating a green industry, because there will be a lack of well-educated professionals there and they speak the languages of these countries. Quite a few still have close family living there and they own property in these countries. Even the non-well educated allochthonous will be drawn back to their countries of origin, for similar reasons. While creating a green industry, there will be work for non- or poorly-educated workers, who, moreover can be trained and educated on the spot. The chance to get work as an unschooled person in the industrialised world is quasi nihil.
For the United States this means that many people originally from South America will go back to their countries of origin and particularly to Mexico.
If the Russian consumers adopt the "biosustainable" market, persons from central Asian states will stop coming to Russia and even return home.
For the European Union a succes of the the "biosustainable" market means that people from Eastern Europe will be among the first ones to go back to their countries. Many of these countries are already member of the EU and their state of democracy is such that it is quite likely that these countries can indeed quickly create green industries, which' producers can successfully compete with the ones from industrialised countries.
The Maghreb countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania and Libya, will also attract a lot of allochthonous back. The large amount of inhabitants of the EU whose origin is in the Maghreb countries implies a potentially well-educated and young working force to search for and develop green industries in these countries. Through their political union, "Union du Maghreb arabe", these countries could cooperate in developing industries that respect nature. The Maghreb countries could therefore become a competitive force in launching ways of living that leave the environment sound with which the industrial world will have to count.
The countries with wealth from petroleum will be more than willing to invest in the creation of green industries in the Maghreb countries. The owners of petrol money are already searching for occasions to invest in sustainable projects. Any financial institution will be interested to invest in the development of green industries in the not yet industrialised world because the return on investment (ROI) will be attractive.
There will thus be a flux of former immigrants out of the industrialised world back to their countries of origin. In particular the allochthonous who obtained a good education will be motivated to go back. They will have good opportunities to make a successful career in the countries creating a green industry, because there will be a lack of well-educated professionals there and they speak the languages of these countries. Quite a few still have close family living there and they own property in these countries. Even the non-well educated allochthonous will be drawn back to their countries of origin, for similar reasons. While creating a green industry, there will be work for non- or poorly-educated workers, who, moreover can be trained and educated on the spot. The chance to get work as an unschooled person in the industrialised world is quasi nihil.
For the United States this means that many people originally from South America will go back to their countries of origin and particularly to Mexico.
If the Russian consumers adopt the "biosustainable" market, persons from central Asian states will stop coming to Russia and even return home.
For the European Union a succes of the the "biosustainable" market means that people from Eastern Europe will be among the first ones to go back to their countries. Many of these countries are already member of the EU and their state of democracy is such that it is quite likely that these countries can indeed quickly create green industries, which' producers can successfully compete with the ones from industrialised countries.
The Maghreb countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania and Libya, will also attract a lot of allochthonous back. The large amount of inhabitants of the EU whose origin is in the Maghreb countries implies a potentially well-educated and young working force to search for and develop green industries in these countries. Through their political union, "Union du Maghreb arabe", these countries could cooperate in developing industries that respect nature. The Maghreb countries could therefore become a competitive force in launching ways of living that leave the environment sound with which the industrial world will have to count.
The countries with wealth from petroleum will be more than willing to invest in the creation of green industries in the Maghreb countries. The owners of petrol money are already searching for occasions to invest in sustainable projects. Any financial institution will be interested to invest in the development of green industries in the not yet industrialised world because the return on investment (ROI) will be attractive.
A pacifying effect on wars and terrorism
A successful development of green industries in countries in which the Muslim religion is the dominant one, might have a soothing effect on events in parts of the Muslim world. Once the well-being and education of people increases, religious leaders loose power over the people who belong to their religious groups. This became clear after the Enlightenment. "The Enlightenment is the period in the history of western thought and culture, stretching roughly from the mid-decades of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century, characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and politics; these revolutions swept away the medieval world-view and ushered in our modern western world." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/) Adam Smith founded the science of economy during this period, with his book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", generally referred to as "The Wealth of Nations", published in 1776. The power of the Roman Catholic Church over the people who live in the countries where Roman Catholicism is the dominant religion has not stopped declining since, while scientific knowledge, education and well-being increased.
There is also a reason why recognising the professional responsibility of consumers for living in harmony with Nature might pacify terrorists.
On October 26, 2016 Professor Peter Robert Demant gave a lecture at the "Dialogue Platform" in Brussels entitled: Is Jihadism Blind Spot of Western Intellectuals? He gave as a tool to stop and thus to prevent terrorism, the presentation of a new ideology preferably as radical as the ones of the jihadists.
To recognise that the consumer has a professional responsibility to maintain ways of living that safeguard the integrity of Nature is radical because radical is defined as, "favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions" according to Merriam Webster. To financially reward the consumer for doing his job is an ideology because that word is defined as, "the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program" and as, "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture".
There is also a reason why recognising the professional responsibility of consumers for living in harmony with Nature might pacify terrorists.
On October 26, 2016 Professor Peter Robert Demant gave a lecture at the "Dialogue Platform" in Brussels entitled: Is Jihadism Blind Spot of Western Intellectuals? He gave as a tool to stop and thus to prevent terrorism, the presentation of a new ideology preferably as radical as the ones of the jihadists.
To recognise that the consumer has a professional responsibility to maintain ways of living that safeguard the integrity of Nature is radical because radical is defined as, "favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions" according to Merriam Webster. To financially reward the consumer for doing his job is an ideology because that word is defined as, "the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program" and as, "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture".
Liberation of funds to maintain the integrity of nature
When you and I shop on the "biosustainable" market mankind will not damage the environment any longer, eventually.
For the moment there are billions of euros, dollars and any other currency spent on repairing the damages caused by our present ways of living, restoring nature to its original state, cleaning up the oceans and all the other resources from the filth, which we are leaving behind us, everywhere.
That money is a part of the costs of running the state.
The principle of the efficient utilisation of natural resources implies that the persons who earn the incomes should manage the costs that are covered by these incomes in order to obtain an optimum efficiency in the utilisation of natural resources.
Who earns the incomes that cover the costs of running the state? The taxpayer
So, the taxpayers should manage the costs of running the state as the most efficient way to utilise resources absorbed in making the state a better place to live.
In order to begin this management, taxpayers should manage the money that is liberated once we live in harmony with nature.
It will take may be decades before it is noticeable that we are damaging the environment less. During this period the necessary research will be done to verify whether having the costs of running the state managed by the taxpayers causes an optimum efficiency in the utilisation of the resources absorbed by the state. If this increase in efficiency turns out to have a remarkable impact on well being, it is inevitable that the costs of running the state will be managed by private companies of which tax payers are shareholders.
For the moment there are billions of euros, dollars and any other currency spent on repairing the damages caused by our present ways of living, restoring nature to its original state, cleaning up the oceans and all the other resources from the filth, which we are leaving behind us, everywhere.
That money is a part of the costs of running the state.
The principle of the efficient utilisation of natural resources implies that the persons who earn the incomes should manage the costs that are covered by these incomes in order to obtain an optimum efficiency in the utilisation of natural resources.
Who earns the incomes that cover the costs of running the state? The taxpayer
So, the taxpayers should manage the costs of running the state as the most efficient way to utilise resources absorbed in making the state a better place to live.
In order to begin this management, taxpayers should manage the money that is liberated once we live in harmony with nature.
It will take may be decades before it is noticeable that we are damaging the environment less. During this period the necessary research will be done to verify whether having the costs of running the state managed by the taxpayers causes an optimum efficiency in the utilisation of the resources absorbed by the state. If this increase in efficiency turns out to have a remarkable impact on well being, it is inevitable that the costs of running the state will be managed by private companies of which tax payers are shareholders.
The next Atlantis
|
As long as the macro economic practise of maintaining growth in development is pursued, billions of consumers will continue to consume more, resources will dwindle further, the ecological crises will worsen and poverty will become even more rampant. By the time arable land, clean air and pure, fresh water have become rare resources, wars will break out to defend what is left of these assets.
Of course maintaining growth in development must also end up in natural catastrophes, which we already see happening around us more and more frequently and more and more damaging: erupting volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, fires, floods and too much snow. Nature is made up of an enormous collection of dynamic processes. The equilibria of these processes have not been disturbed for hundreds of centuries. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the condition in nature in which opposing forces are equal to one another has been upset tremendously. As can be expected of dynamic processes of which the internal stability has been perturbed, these processes react in a way to re-establish this balance and they will do so by eliminating the disturbing element, the human species. These are the laws of Nature. There is nothing I can do about it. So, as long as we, all more than seven billion, do not live in harmony with nature, Nature will keep on wiping us out even if it takes another Atlantis. The probability that this happens is not 0%. Politicians, law makers do not listen to scientists when dealing with the ecological- and economic crises and with poverty. On 24 June 2015, Urgenda and 900 co-claimants won the climate case and enforced a more stringent climate policy by the Dutch state. A court in the Haghe, the Netherlands decided that in 2020 the emission of CO2 has to be reduced to 25% in comparison with 1990.* * http://www.urgenda.nl/themas/klimaat-en-energie/klimaatzaak/ |
In September 2015, I explained in a letter to Mr. Rutte, who was then Prime Minister of the Netherlands, that he would be able to reach the levels set by the court, if he financially rewarded the consumer for living in harmony with Nature. I received a letter signed by him that my proposal was contrary to the programmes of his government.
I answered that he should adapt his programmes, because science is not adapted, science determines. I received a letter from the person who had already dealt with my letter to Mr. Rutte, not to bother them anymore. In November 2015 I sent a letter to a scientific council of the Dutch government with the same advice. In July 2011 I had sent a message to the Dutch government with the same proposal. In 1990, a generation ago, I reacted to a demand for advice how to defend the Netherlands against rising sea levels because of the warming of the atmosphere. My advice was to allow the consumer to deduct his green costs of living from his taxable income. This proposal was incorporated with all the advices received in a special report, "Reacties van particulieren", Advies Kustverdediging na 1990, Raad van de Waterstaat, 'sGravenhage, 2 februari 1990. Politicians do get together to discuss how the ecological problems have to be solved, such as at the climate conference in Poland in December of 2018. They declared the meeting a success because they had come up with a Rulebook. It is impossible that a group of politicians can solve planetary problems concerning Nature by agreeing to meet certain goals, like the Millennium Development Goals. They have not been met. The goals politicians set can only delay the inevitable end of a development based on consuming more. The year 2030 might not be the year it all ends, but it could very well be the year of the point of no return. |
© BIOSUSTAINABLE 2003. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Last updated on July 26th, 2021
Last updated on July 26th, 2021