Thursday, May 9, 2019

The Influence of al-Ghazali on the Theory of Causality




The Influence of al-Ghazâlî on the Theory of Causality
            One of the most interesting features of the “Big Three” religions of the world is that the underlying doctrines of each can trace their lineages directly to an ongoing debate between the Aristotelian view of Materialism and Plato’s Theory of Forms that began nearly 24 centuries ago.[1] In dealing with the history of interaction between the adherents of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, Western scholarly views traditionally pitted Christianity—touted as the central religion—against the others in what essentially amounted to a power struggle to maintain the one true Will of the one true God. However, many scholars over the past several decades have begun adopting what is now understood to be the more appropriate, more accurate version of the history of the Mediterranean—namely, that these religions developed along similar lines in a broad, multicultural region of the world that was rich in trade, politics, and scientific advancements. For example, by the time of the Islamic Golden Age from roughly the mid-7th to the mid-13th centuries[2], the Mediterranean Sea had offered a relatively easy route for traders and conquerors alike to travel from Valencia to Tripoli and anywhere in between for several hundred years. Along with myriad goods, ideas on everything from religion to politics; from medicine to astrology; and from atoms to the formation of the universe were readily exchanged in cities such as Córdoba, al-Andalus (Spain) and Alexandria, Egypt, drawing influence from virtually every known part of the world at the time. Baghdad once served as the site of one of the intellectual, cultural, and scientific centers of the world and economic powerhouses such as Cairo began exerting a much larger trading influence around the Mediterranean through the trade of a number of ‘exotic’ goods.[3] By the mid-11th century, Islamic influence on the entire region was ubiquitous and many great works of Greek philosophy, mathematics, and science had been translated into Arabic by Abu Yusuf Ya’qub ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi and others that followed.[4] Then in 1095, Abû Hâmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazâlî (Ghazâlî, or Muhammad, hereafter) began publishing works critically examining the philosophical arguments of Ash’arites and Mu’tazilites (collectively, Mutakallimûn) and those of the Greeks.[5] And it is to this most influential scholar that attention is turned.
            Ghazâlî was born in the mid- to late-1050s in what is now northeastern Iran. Educated in Ash’arite theology by al-Juwaynî, Muhammad eventually ascended the political and religious ranks of Baghdad and was appointed to a position at the Nizâmayya Madrasa in 1091.[6] It was during this time that Ghazâlî began his endeavor to develop a rigid, more coherent analysis of the foundations of Islam. One of the ambiguities that arose during some of the preliminary translations of  Ghazâlî’s tahâfut al-falâsifa (falâsifa) by Dr. Simon Van den Bergh was his view of the Theory of Causality.[7] But, before diving into falâsifa, perhaps it would be prudent to briefly examine the basics of the Aristotelian and Platonic views in which Islamic ideology find its roots.
On the one hand, Aristotle argued that in order to understand the internal structure of the physical world, experiments must be conducted within the framework of a rigid methodology. “The most exact sciences,” he writes, “are those that, more than the others, study the first things; for the sciences that are derived from fewer principles (for instance, arithmetic) are more exact than those (for instance, geometry) that require further principles… Further, the most superior science—the one that is superior to any subordinate science—is the one that knows the end for which a given thing should be done; this end is something’s good, and in general the end is what is best in every sort of nature” (Aristotle et al., p. 118). Aristotle later begins a long discussion Substance with, “The things called substances are, first, the simple bodies (earth, fire, water, and everything like that) and in general bodies and the things composed from them (animals and divine things and their parts). All these things are said to be substances because they are not said of a subject, but the other things are said of them” (Aristotle et al., p. 149). After a long line of reasoning that examines everything from Plato’s and Democritus’ arguments to the interaction between potentiality and actuality, he arrives at a few noteworthy understandings. “It is evident from what has been said, then, that there is an everlasting, unmoved substance that is separated from perceptible things (Aristotle et al., p. 191). He continues:

The nature of understanding raises a number of puzzles. For understanding seems to be the most divine of the things we observe, but many difficulties arise about what state it must be in if it is to be so divine…

then, must understand itself, so that its understanding is an understanding of understanding. In every case, however, knowledge, perception, belief, and though have something other than themselves as their object; each has itself as its object as a by-product (Aristotle et al., p. 192).
Finally, Aristotle wraps up his discussion of Substance by addressing knowledge:

[K]knowledge, like knowing, is of two kinds, potential and actual. Since the potentiality, as being matter, is universal and indefinite, it is of the universal and indefinite. But since the actuality is definite, it is of what is definite, and, since it is a this, it is of a this…
It is clear, however, that in a way knowledge is universal, and in a way it is not (Aristotle et al., p.195).

            On the other hand, Plato used, for example, the parable of the cave to question whether something actually exists or whether it exists within the essence of that thing—what he called Forms. Although Ghazâlî eventually offers a sort of compromise between the two, since the majority of Ghazâlî’s refutations examined here regard Aristotelian Materialism, further elaboration on Plato’s Forms is unnecessary.
In his treatise falâsifa, referring to the authors of ancient works collectively as the philosophers, Ghazâlî begins the section ‘Refutation of their belief in the eternity of the world’,

THE philosophers disagree among themselves as to the eternity of the world. But the majority of the philosophers - ancient as well as modern-agree upon its eternity, holding that it always coexisted with God (exalted be He) as His effect which was concurrent with Him in time -concurrent as an effect is with the cause, e.g.., light with the Sun -and that God's priority to the world is the priority of the cause to the effect - viz., priority in essence and rank, not in time. Plato is said to have maintained that the world began in time. But some people put different inter­pretations on his words, for they would not have him believe in the origin of the world... The consensus of opinion among the philosophers is that as a rule it is inconceivable that something which has a beginning in time should proceed from the eternal without there being any intermediary (Ghazâlî 1058-1111 CE).[8]

In other words, the discussion involves determining causes and their effects. In Did Al-Ghazali Deny Causality, Goodman notes, “Ghazâlî’s argument against the sufficiency of observed causes to produce their effects does not deny but rather exploits the Philosophers’ emanative view of nature and assumes the rejection of a reductionistic view which might consistently have regarded the material objects as self-sufficient in their causal action” (Goodman, p. 91). And in Alon’s interpretation:
                       
The definition of the universality of causality, namely the assertion that nothing has ever occurred without some cause, usually maintains that the existence of a phenomenon implies that of a cause. Such a definition of causality would seem to be acceptable to Al-Ghazâlî, as well as to even the most extreme opponents of causality among the Ash’arites, who accept the doctrine that Allah is the sole cause of everything…

Allah alone is responsible for their creation in a specific order, but it is in His power to disconnect them at will (Alon, p.399).
            Abrahamov briefly examines falâsifa while referencing both Goodman and Alon:
                       
Alon proves through a structural, contextual and semantic examination of chapter XVII of tahâfut al-falsâsifa (referring mainly to the above quoted section and what follows) that al-Ghazâlî seeks to reconcile the two opposing views on causality, the philosophical view and that of the Kalâm.[9] According to Alon, al-Ghazâlî’s admission that God acts through physical means and his acceptance of impossibility not only in the logical domain but also in the ontological one affirm causality. Goodman proves that al-Ghazâlî, using Aristotelian axioms expressed in Islamized terminology, holds causality but rejects the philosophers’ doctrine that causes are necessary… Thus we have only a partial picture of al-Ghazâlî’s views of causality, namely that which is found in his tahâfut (Abrahamov, p. 77-78).

Rather than rehash prior, exhaustive examinations of the same doctrine, Abrahamov decided to look at three of Ghazâlî’s other works, ilyâ, k. al-arba’în, and al-maksad al asnâ, to find the rest of the picture. In al-adba’în, Abrahamov explains that Ghazâlî, “begins with the assertion that God has willed every existing thing and that everything in this perishable corporeal world (mulk) as well as in the everlasting spiritual world (malakût) happens in accordance with God’s decree (kadâ) and by His determination (kadar), judgement (hukm) and will (mashî’a)” (Abrahamov, p. 78). The issue of kadar is then framed within the context of people misinterpreting verses of the Qur’an and how:
…only God and those firmly rooted in knowledge (al-râsikûn fî’l-‘ilm) know their true meaning… Kadar, according to al-Ghazâlî, is a secret, and any attempt to understand it is forbidden. Whoever wants to know God’s secrets must obey His precepts sincerely and do what pleases Him. But if he cannot be satisfied with only devotion, he must believe (‘alayhi an ya’takida) what Abû Hanîfa and his adherents say about this matter, namely, that it is God’s action that creates power in man (ihdâth al-istitâ’a fi’l allah) while man’s action consists of using the power that was created (wa’isti’mâl al-istitâ’a al-muhdatha fi’l al-‘abd) really and not just metaphorically using it (Abrahamov, p. 78-79).

            Ghazâlî then goes on to explain four stages of God’s will and how it is manifest in the world. In the first stage, a direction for causality originating with God is established while in the second stage He “establishes (nasaba) absolute, basic, fixed and stable causes… which neither disappear nor change till the end of days” (Abrahamov, p. 80). The third stage deals with the abovementioned kadar (determination) and how God is directing cause toward their effects. And the final stage is where Ghazâlî concludes that, “nothing exists outside God’s decree and determination” (Abrahamov, p. 81). Using a parable involving a water clock, Ghazâlî writes that, “Everything that happens in this world, be it good or bad, useful or harmful, is according to God’s will, just as the clock moves according to the will of its maker” (Abrahamov, p. 83). This line of reason culminates in a compromise made between faith and philosophy. “Using the term hukm, which denotes wisdom… on the one hand, and the terms kadâ and kadar, which connote power, on the other hand, he reconciles the philosophical view that God is wisdom with the religious view that God is power” (Abrahamov, p.84). To sum up, “Man is led to act by a cause-effect chain” (Abrahamov, p. 89).
            However, it appears that contradictions exist between ihyâ and falâsifa. It is within these contradictions that questions regarding Ghazâlî’s foundational views have arisen. For example, in falâsifa, Ghazâlî uses the idea of cotton coming into contact with flames to show the direction of cause-effect while allowing for God to circumvent such rules. Abrahamov explains,

In ihyâ, al-Ghazâlî holds the opposite view. He explicitly states that it is impossible for a conditioned thing to precede a condition; e.g., volition must come after knowledge. “Possibility (imkân) means derivation (tarlîb), and derivation does not admit change (lâ yakbalu al-taghyîr).” Likewise it is impossible that God would cause plants to sprout without man sowing or that a woman should give birth without sexual intercourse (Abrahamov, p. 96).

(It is interesting to note the first argument in that last line of this passage since it is now well understood that plants existed long before humans showed up to destroy the Earth through arrogance.)
            Before moving on to other sources, Abrahamov’s conclusions are important to discuss since it is through them that an understanding of the compromise made between philosophy and Orthodox Islam can be understood. “Al-Ghazâlî’s theory,” he explains, “is that God created things and their natures and the he established the plan by which things influence each other. The condition-conditioned chain that al-Ghazâlî depicts in ihyâ is no other than the scheme he elaborates in al-maksad and k. al-arba’în” (Abrahamov, p. 97). Finally, he concludes the investigation by enumerating four facets of Ghazâlî’s causality:

By establishing a cause-effect chain with God as its First Cause and Maintainer, al-Ghazâlî affirms the following: a. God is Omnipotent and One, since He alone, at His will has created and continues to maintain the cause-effect chain. b. God acts through His wisdom and not capriciously. c. Consequently it is possible to acquire knowledge about the world, since every event or thing has a cause, and things happen or change according to a fixed scheme. d. Man is obliged to choose his actions but his choice is really compulsory too… Points a and d represent the religious view, while points b and c represent the philosophical view. (Abrahamov, p. 97-98).

            While Ghazâlî at least partially accepted causality through his discussion of fire and cotton in falâsifa, he wanted to maintain the possibility of miracles—the second of his two main objectives along this line of reasoning. Alon details Muhammad’s first objective by saying, “He accepts the concept of the “nature” of a thing, without accepting this term itself. The word he uses instead is sifah, i.e. quality (literally “description,” “attribute”)” (Alon, p. 403). Even with the concession to causality, Ghazâlî still believed in the omnipotence of Allah because of his view toward miracles. “This,” Alon explains, “Al-Ghazâlî manages to do despite his partial acceptance of causality; he agrees to reduce the miracle to a phenomenon which follows the course of nature without the usual lapse of time” (Alon, p. 403-404). That is, Allah has the power to make things that would naturally happen over long periods of time happen instead over much shorter periods of time or instantaneously. And this is a main point of departure from the mutakallimûn view that some things, such as having knowledge and life contained within the dead, are impossible even for Allah. Ghazâlî accepted the idea of impossible but, “managed to attack the extremist mutakallimûn for their rejecting any notion of impossibility of Allah” (Alon, p. 404).[10]
            Ghazâlî also departs from the Aristotelian view in how old he thinks is the universe. Goodman recognizes that in falâsifa, “Ghazâlî does not attempt to refute the Aristotelian view that matter is continuous. Nor does Ghazâlî attempt to refute the Philosopher’s notion of the continuity of time, but only to expose Aristotle’s fallacious inference that the continuity of time implies time’s perpetuity” (Goodman, p. 110). In other words, the Universe must have begun when Allah willed it so. Continuing:

If we wish to situate Ghazâlî’s own position as to causality, then he helps us a great deal by stating clearly his agreement with the Philosophers’ doctrine (which he takes them to task for not adhering to more strictly) that God is the ultimate cause of all events… but that one event within nature may be the proximate cause or effect of another and that within the frame of reference of nature and the characters with which things are created, one can even say that proximate causes must have their effects and vice versa unless other causes interfere… Thus Ghazâlî retains causality while rejecting the Philosophers’ doctrine of necessity among created causes (Goodman, p. 111).

            Addressing the concepts of nature and creation, Ghazâlî makes a particular distinction within a framework that serves to actually bolster the Aristotelian views on the subjects:

Ghazâlî has a conception of nature (khalqa) distinct from that of the Philosophers, as a divinely created character of things. What is at issue for him is not whether the familiar pattern of nature’s operation, which we have learned to expect habitually in the course of long observation, is itself necessary in the sense that things could never have been otherwise and could never become other[w]ise. Ghazâlî’s answer to that question and the answer which all monotheists inspired by the Biblical tradition would give is… implicit in acceptance of the concept of creation itself… To put the matter in terms of Ghazâlî’s paradigm example, if life were an essential and inseparable property of living thing, then life would have belonged to all living things perpetually and would be inalienable from them in concept and in fact (Goodman, p.113).

In other words, if life is intrinsic to certain collections of matter, it should be that way in perpetuity. And, if that was the case, everything that has ever lived would still live. However, we see that this is not what is experienced so it is thus rejected.
            At the outset, Goodman asked the question Did Ghazâlî Deny Causality and concludes, “[W]e have seen quite clearly from a thorough examination of his discussion on the subject, that even in the course of affirming the reality of the miraculous—of which the paradigm for Ghazâlî was the mystery of life and intelligence being imparted to what is in itself lifeless and inert matter—quite consistently he did not” (Goodman, p. 120).
            A final topic of interest is in Ghazâlî’s ideas about the concept of doubt. Introduced in his al-Munqidh min al-Dalal,[11] Rayan has this to say regarding his Method of Doubt:
                       
Al-Ghazali believes that reaching the truth of things requires knowledge of “true science.” It is apparent to him that “certain science” is the one in which the “known thing” is revealed in an undoubted way, and is not connected to the possibility of error and illusion, and the heart cannot have room to assess it. This means that al-Ghazali has doubt in every science that is not certain, and certainty for him is the criterion for the truth of things. Science is considered real only when it is absolutely certain and proves true in the face of any expression of doubt (Rayan, p. 166).

Ghazâlî used this method of doubt to shore up his developing arguments against Aristotelian views. “This thorough critical thinking,” Rayan concludes, “leads to an assessment of all types of knowledge that have been accepted for a long time, and to the shaking of trust in concepts that have been taken for granted as reliable. This in turn leads to review of the sciences according to logical criteria that are meant to distinguish the right from the wrong, the correct from the incorrect” (Rayan, p. 173).
            So, in conclusion, it appears that, after examining exhaustive research from multiple scholarly sources, Ghazâlî ultimately did not deny causality but instead sort of embraced it through the application of a glorified “God of the Gaps” argument. That is, Allah functioned as Prime Mover that set all things, including time, into motion. And this, of course, implies that free choice in humans is something that doesn’t actually exist since, “even man’s thoughts and motives are determined by God” (Abrahamov, p. 86). Although he elaborates on the concept in ihyâ, the conclusion is ultimately the same: God did it.

Bibliography
Abrahamov, Binyamin. "Al-Ghazālī's Theory of Causality." Studia Islamica, no. 67 (1988): 75-
98. doi:10.2307/1595974.
Alon, Ilai. "Al-Ghazālī on Causality." Journal of the American Oriental Society 100, no. 4
(1980): 397-405. doi:10.2307/602085.
Aristotle, et al. Aristotle: Introductory Readings. Hackett Pub., 1996.
Catlos, Brian A. Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors: Faith, Power, and Violence in the Age of
Crusade and Jihad. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015.
Edward Omar Moad. "Al-Ghazali on Power, Causation, and 'Acquisition'." Philosophy East and
West 57, no. 1 (2007): 1-13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4488073.
Goodman, Lenn Evan. "Did Al-Ghazâlî Deny Causality?" Studia Islamica, no. 47 (1978): 83-
120. doi:10.2307/1595550.
Plato, and W. H. D. Rouse. Great Dialogues of Plato. New York: Signet Classics, 2008.
Rayan, Sobhi. "Al-Ghazali's Method of Doubt." Middle East Studies Association Bulletin 38, no.
2 (2004): 162-73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23062806.



[1] This is from my class notes.
[3] Brian A. Catlos, Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors (New York 2014) p. 192.
[5] Specifically, Neoplatonist’s interpretations of Aristotle.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Lenn Evan Goodman, Did al-Ghazali Deny Causality?, p. 105.
[9] Generally speaking, the word Kalâm refers to an Islamic medieval theology. However, The Kalâm Cosmological Argument is the title of a 1979 book by William Lane Craig that elaborates on the debate Ghazâlî entered when he began discussing causality.
[10] This can easily be interpreted as a Procrustean argument, as appears to be the case for most of Ghazâlî’s line of reasoning.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Moving Toward A Resource Based Economy


Moving Toward a Resource Based Economy
While there have no doubt been countless periods throughout roughly 7-million years of upright-hominid history that can be considered ‘significant’, perhaps none have been more pivotal than what is currently being experienced as the human species swiftly moves into the third decade of the 21st Century. Never before have we had unfettered access to the entirety of humankind’s knowledgebase at our fingertips; yet, 17% of the global population is still illiterate.[1] Never before have we had the technology to easily and continuously feed over 7.5-billion people; yet, we still collectively throw away 30-40% of the food supply in the United States alone[2] while over 3-million children die from undernutrition each year.[3] Never before have we had the ability to produce more than enough energy to suit all human needs; yet around 14% of the global population still has little to no access to electricity![4] And, never before have we better understood the human mind and what causes aberrant behavior; yet, the United States prison population eclipses every other country on Earth with over 2-million incarcerated in a privatized, for-profit system.[5] Clearly, there exists a void between what we know and what we do with what we know! But, what is it that causes such a chasm between the two to continue widening despite the undeniable advancements made over the millennia? Is it some character flaw in ‘human nature’—greed, jealousy, or the lust for power? Unlikely, since those instead are all attributes of ‘human behavior’ that have evolved, along with the human body, subject to natural processes. What about some rogue corporation or government corrupting the system? Doubtful, since all entities are operating within the limits of the economic model in place. But, with this line of reasoning we seem to be nearing the correct question, which of course must first be addressed if we are to offer any semblance of appropriate solutions: Could it be the economic model itself?
Although historical records of European society leading up to 14th century mostly indicate human interactions filled with disease, despots, and destruction, the Mediterranean instead offered, during that same period, some of the most culturally and scientifically enriched cities in the world. One could argue that these are but two stages in the natural progression of any seemingly-intelligent beings as they move toward becoming civilized. However, once such a species becomes capable of reciprocating influence with the environment that sustains it, a new responsibility manifests that eventually becomes the defining factor of any future progression. That is what happened with homo sapiens between the 18th and 19th centuries here on Earth. The discovery and subsequent, ubiquitous use of coal and oil quickly ushered in a new era of development that was unparalleled in history. But, fast-forward through two centuries of dumping ever-increasing amounts of what we presently understand to be potent greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and we stand on the precipice of the most dangerous paradigm shift in history. Many solutions have been offered but a common thread weaves them together and fates them to similar failures: All have been developed within the context of the current economic model in place. That is, no one even questions the existence of market economics—it’s just assumed that it will be used. Capitalism, neoliberal globalization, the free market—regardless of the label one chooses to help them nuance someone to death, one thing is clear: It is no longer relevant in the 21st century. But, how do we address such a massive, relentless economic machine with hundreds of millions of participants too distracted or unwilling to even consider a change? It will be difficult but I believe that, just as those that led the great civil rights movements throughout the 20th century, we shall overcome![6] Of course, the big question is always how?
If an economy is to have any form of success, the term must first be defined. So, what does it mean to have an economy? To economize, of course! At its very core, an economy should seek to avoid waste everywhere possible.[7] So, can we say that our current market economy avoids waste anywhere? Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, there is an entire industry that profits from waste so it can be confidently stated that waste is actually good for the market economy.[8] The more waste we produce the better; for, it means someone will have a job. But, there is an alternative that actually lives up to its name and appears capable of solving most of the problems that manifest as a result of market economics: A Resource Based Economy (RBE).[9] Throughout this brief exercise, I will be examining a few specific topics within the context of each model while asking the following questions: How does each model address the issue? And, Which model is more economical?
          Let’s begin with human interrelations. In an RBE, the relationships people build with one another would tend to be focused on collaboration and the sharing of ideas and resources. There’d be an understanding that we are on this planet as a single species among millions and must work together to reduce waste and reduce suffering. An environment would be maintained where everyone is raised to their highest potential while machine automation provides strategic access to the necessities of life to everyone on the planet. In other words, we would be free to pursue positive self-fulfillment in life.[10] On the other hand, in a market economy, people tend to be far more individualistic and geared toward maximizing their self-interest, constantly buying more products, or "gaining the upper hand" when it comes to everything from job positions to the most innocuous of opinions about irrelevant, inconsequential topics. "Those damn liberals...!" you'll hear people say. "The Patriots are garbage!" is another favorite. Unfortunately, the fact that social hierarchy, rather than being some random, unwanted manifestation of a flawed system, is actually built right into this one, is all but universally ignored. The whole power structure and social stratification thing is great—for the people at the top of this glorified Ponzi scheme. But, at the foundational level the truth is this: if you don't serve an adequate function in this market economy, you might as well die because you're on your own—a veritable ‘anti-economy’.
          What about growth? An RBE recognizes the Earth as a finite system that can generally be thought of as being closed. In other words, what's here is what we've got and we should do our best to preserve all of it. That means developing alternative resources, recycling, and designing products for maximum lifetimes so that overall consumption goes down. In stark contrast, the current market economy is situated firmly on the ideas of infinite growth and constant turnover. Products are mass produced irrespective of raw resource supply—many of which find their way into landfills not long after being purchased. But, that’s okay because as long as we increase consumption, we can always measure the health of the economy in terms of economic abstractions such as GDP and wave Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ at all negative externalities. Right?—Wrong! Ask yourself, if you’re in a group that becomes stranded on an island with limited resources, would you want to implement a system that tries to use up those resources as quickly as possible or would preservation be the key to your survival?
          What about Property? That’s important, isn’t it? In an RBE, people would have strategic access to the necessities of life. With the level of abundance capable of being created and maintained through machine automation, money has become an unnecessary restriction to access. Poverty in the future would be viewed as the inexcusable act of violence that it is—an unfortunate learning experience of the past as shameful and horrifying as slavery and likewise never to be revisited. Open source sharing of ideas and products would be much more efficient and much less wasteful in terms of resources. Does it make any sense to claim that everyone on the planet wants or needs one of everything ever produced? Of course not! And, does it make any sense to buy a car to then have it sit for 50% or more of the time wasting its functional utility in a parking lot? These are methods produced by people who have a singular goal in mind: profits. We must realize that the idea of property is ultimately a contrivance, as none of the crap we accumulate throughout our lives goes with us when we die. In other words, everything is transient—even our bodies. In a future RBE, accumulating vast amounts of wealth and resources while restricting others' access to those resources for profit would be seen as counter to responsible resource management. But, ‘profit at any cost’ is exactly what a market economy demands and rewards. The metric for success tends to be measured in terms of purchasing power; the more property you have, the more praise and power you are supposed to receive and wield. Plus, if you can patent an idea or copyright a certain work, you can restrict others' access to those ideas and works to generate even more profit. Again, this is more of an anti-economy than anything else. But, what would people do if they didn’t ‘work’? Wouldn’t they sit around and just do nothing all day, every day?
          The technology that has been developed over the course of the past century is mind-boggling. We are currently capable of automating a majority of industries in existence today because most of those jobs exist for the sole purpose of perpetuating the market economy. Low-wage, low-skill jobs are an affront to human potential and, rather than being a source of fulfillment, tend to burden workers into submission with repetitive, boring tasks that only make sense within the context of such a system that must constantly distract them from the miserable reality of barely being able to pay rent and eat healthy food every day.[11] A Resource Based Economy would thrive on automation, replacing human labor in as many sectors as quickly as possible. The idea is to free humans from drudgery and dangerous jobs so that they can pursue positive self-fulfillment in life. What does that mean? Well, think about all the things you've been interested in throughout your life but were told not to pursue because they wouldn't make you money, or a living, or were unrealistic or out of reach according to someone else. If you're asking the question, What would people do in such a system of access? I'll simply throw it right back to you: What would you do if you didn't have to clock into the dictatorship 40 hours or more a week? Are you going to sit around and do nothing? If your answer to that question is ‘no’, then why assume as much about everyone else? We have machines to do our dirty work and they don’t need breaks, health insurance, pensions, or salaries, and they can work all day, every day with no complaints. In terms of manufacturing, we could even reduce our energy usage through large, automated ‘dark factories’ in which there is little to no lighting since machines doing repetitive tasks don’t need it. The industrial sector is the largest energy consumer so any reduction in usage would directly lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas production.[12] But, once those goods are produced, how might we get them to people? What does distribution look like in an RBE?
There are many ways in which the distribution of resources can unfold; choosing the best one to serve 7.5-billion people is a monumental task that must be carefully considered if we are to reduce human suffering and environmental degradation. People often argue in terms of more ‘equal’ distribution but then the conversation tends to get mired in a debate about opportunities and outcomes. But, I argue that equal distribution doesn't make sense for any economic system because people don't have equal wants or needs. Rather, through the use of strategic access centers, people would have all the fundamental goods and services available to them in an efficient, equitable system.[13] Today, we calls these malls and shopping centers but in an RBE there would be no debt, no barter, no servitude; and no trade of any kind—simply access. Automated delivery systems would even be put in place to maximize efficiency. Conversely, a Market economy relies on the classical ideas of labor for income and supply & demand to produce and distribute goods. We mass produce inferior goods and then hire people to sit in a chair driving that crap all over the world in planes, trains, trucks, and ships—a pointless exercise outside the context of labor for income. Nevertheless, regardless of the brand, the products are inferior and outmoded the moment they are produced because optimal design, production, and distribution are stifled in every stage of the process by something called ‘cost efficiency’. That is, in order to make a product and remain competitive nowadays, companies must cut costs along every stage of production—from design all the way through distribution. This inevitably reduces the quality of every single product on the market, increasing the amount of waste as products break down and are thrown away. An anti-economy indeed! But, with machine automation, this type of quality reduction is now effectively obsolete along with the waste it produces. In fact, here is a chart detailing the inverse relationship between manufacturing employment and manufacturing production from 1947 to 2011:

Figure 1: This graph shows how manufacturing production and manufacturing employment trends have developed from 1947 to 2010.[14][15]
It was around the year 2000 when manufacturing employment sharply declined as more companies began automating processes. This of course presents us with a massive problem: Our entire economic model is predicated on the assumption of labor-for-income while automation directly threatens that structure through the displacement of human workers. In other words, not only are workers in virtually every sector out there competing with each other for jobs in the marketplace, they are now competing directly with machines that do the jobs faster, more efficiently, and to a higher degree of accuracy and precision than any human or group of humans ever could. The unmistakable advantage of machine automation in the manufacturing sector is difficult to argue against outside of the labor-for-income aspect; workers simply shifted away from this sector into a burgeoning service sector.[16] But, not even the service industry is safe from automation. In 2018, the world’s first fully automated restaurant opened in Beijing.[17] Of course, this begs the question: If people in manufacturing had the service sector to accommodate their displacement, to which industry will those in the service sector move once automation is fully embraced by corporations wanting to cut labor costs and increase profits?[18]
This disconnect we’re experiencing—the sort of clash between traditional views and the emergent nature of technology—it’s doing much more than simply stifling socioeconomic progress. It’s killing people. That is, we currently have the resources and technology to feed, clothe, and house every single person on the planet—to build desalination plants all over the world—to provide renewable energy to at least every industrialized nation on Earth—to automate as many production and distribution systems as possible. But we choose not to do any of those things! Perhaps the most disturbing realization about all of that is that we have the resources to feed every single person on the planet—but we choose not to do it. Why? It’s simply not profitable since half the world’s population lives in poverty.[19] Meanwhile, an old building burns and suddenly over $1-billion finds its way to the “restoration” efforts in just 2 days.[20] Could you have ever possibly imagined such a cruel and callous system? Some people will actually rationalize this situation in terms of “preserving a national icon” versus “consequences of personal choice” or some other obscure dichotomy that misses the point or intentionally obfuscates it. The reality is that we are talking about human lives versus a building. Plain and simple. And I choose human lives every single time.
Where do we go from here? If we truly want to move into a new economic model that might actually economize, then we need to have a plan explaining how to get from here to there. And, of course, the transition is perhaps the most difficult part of the entire endeavor; we have to be cautious! While there are countless ways for such a paradigm shift to go horribly awry, there are perhaps but a few ways for the transition to be as smooth as possible. Fresco has this to say regarding the subject:

I am not advocating that these older institutions be overthrown: it is just that they are becoming unworkable. Unfortunately, it will probably take a social and economic breakdown to bring about the demise of the old system and its institutions. At this point, significant social change will probably only occur when a sufficient number of people, through economic failure, lose confidence in their elected officials. The public will then demand other alternatives. While we would like to think that this could usher in a bright new chapter in the human drama, it is far more likely that the most probable course will be a form of dictatorship, perhaps even an American brand of fascism presented to the people as a way of protecting them from the products of their own inadequate culture (Fresco 2013, p. 27)

One might argue that this is a rather grim outlook, but keep in mind that there are no utopias and no final frontiers. This transition will be the most challenging feat ever attempted by humankind but the reward is priceless. Human society—at least as long as it exists—will be in a constant state of change that is directly related to the socioeconomic policies in place. So we must leave posterity with the tools and knowledge that allow and in fact encourage them to embrace those changes. So, how do we get from here to there?
The details of Fresco’s plan can be found on the website for The Venus Project.[21] Phase One has been underway for several decades and has culminated in a 22-acre research facility in Venus, Florida. Documentaries, lectures, DVDs, books, and even tours are presently available. Phase Two is focused on releasing a feature-length film examining life within such a global system. Phase Three will implement a plan to build an entire research city to develop the aims and goals of a Resource Based Economy along the lines of the following 17 attributes:
·      Recognizing the world’s resources as the common heritage of all Earth’s people.
·      Transcending the artificial boundaries that separate people.
·      Evolving from a money-based, nationalistic economies to a resource-based world economy.
·      Assisting in stabilizing the world’s population through education and voluntary birth control in order to conform to the carrying capacity of Earth’s resources.
·      Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.
·      Redesigning our cities, transportation systems, agricultural industries, and industrial plants so that they are energy efficient, clean, and able to conveniently serve the needs of all people.
·      Sharing and applying new technologies for the benefit of all nations.
·      Developing and using clean and renewable energy sources.
·      Manufacturing the highest quality products for the benefit of the world’s people.
·      Requiring environmental impact studies prior to construction of any mega projects.
·      Encouraging the widest range of creativity and incentive toward constructive endeavor.
·      Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice through education.
·      Outgrowing any type of elitism, technical or otherwise.
·      Arriving at methodologies through careful research, rather than from mere opinions.
·      Enhancing communication in schools so that our language corresponds to the actual physical nature of the world.
·      Providing not only the necessities of life, but also offering challenges that stimulate the mind while emphasizing individuality over uniformity.
·      Finally, preparing people intellectually and emotionally for the changes and challenges that lie ahead.
Phase Four is the final stage and would see a theme park built to educate and entertain visitors on the tenets of the system and how it will apply globally.
            To me, this is the only system capable of operating within the carrying capacity of the Earth while providing access abundance to everyone. And while Fresco’s answer to how we get from here to there might be unsatisfying to many, we can, in the meantime, work the current system in whatever way is possible and necessary in order to force the transition. So, I’ve come up with three of my own transitional catalysts that could move us faster toward Fresco’s Phase Three.
First, whether you want to admit it, believe it, accept it or not, robots are likely going to take our jobs over the next 30 years.[22] So why not just let them? If we insist on automating the monetary/market economy, then we must shift the focus from labor-for-income to rent-for-income. But, what does that mean? Instead of robotics companies selling their products directly to manufacturing and service companies and displacing workers, require them through legislation to only sell directly to the workers with minimal exceptions.[23] The workers then rent the robots to the manufacturing and service companies for their salaries.
Second, energy companies will be bound by mandatory, exemption-free legislation to offer a number of transitional energy packages in order to swiftly move away from burning fossil fuels for energy over the next 10 years globally. Lifetime rentals and system buyouts are just two of the many possible manifestations of this train of thought. And the servicing requirement guarantees new jobs—at least until they are also automated. Then we’re back to the first example![24]
Lastly, we need a maximum age to hold office. Term limits are great but if we truly wish to move beyond stagnant, traditionalized thinking, then, with the help of such disciplines as cognitive psychology and sociology, it’s time to make the dinosaurs of thought retire from public service so fresh, young ideas are always circulating within the ranks of decision-making bodies.
Alas! In this modern era of instant-gratification and perpetual-dissatisfaction, do you want to know what truly matters?—Feeding, clothing, and housing everyone. Those are some of the only things that have ever truly mattered. But the difference now—in the 21st Century—rests upon the fact that we are advanced enough to actually make those things happen. And, if you were fortunate enough like I was to win the birthing lottery and have grown up in one of the richest, most prosperous nations in the industrialized world, then I can say without a shred of doubt that we all know it. As Jacque Fresco once said, “If you think we can’t change the world, it just means you’re not one of those that will.” So, what will it be? Are you ready to change the world?

Works Cited
Catlos, Brian A. "Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors: Faith, Power, and Violence in the Age of
Crusade and Jihad." Choice Reviews Online52, no. 09 (2015).doi:10.5860/choice.187244.
Feder, Kenneth L. The past in Perspective: An Introduction to Human Prehistory. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2019.
Fresco, Jacque, Jacque Fresco, and Roxanne Meadows. The Best That Money Can’t Buy: Beyond
Politics, Poverty, & War. Venus, FL: Global Cyber-Visions, 2013.
Ristinen, Robert A., Jack J. Kraushaar, and Jeffrey T. Brack. Energy and the Environment.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2016.


[10] The qualifying term ‘positive’ is important here. There are likely countless ways in which humans can find self-fulfillment, but only some of those are conducive to maintaining both individual satisfaction and societal health.
[13] Within the discussion of economic distribution, the difference between ‘equal’ and ‘equitable’ is subtle, yet it stands the epitome of importance. Whether talking about opportunities or outcomes, ‘equal’ means that an individual’s particular advantages, disadvantages, wants, and needs are generally ignored. For example, not everyone needs blood pressure medication and not everyone wants a Lamborghini. And, of the people that need blood pressure medication, not everyone needs the same amount; of the people that want a Lamborghini, not all of them are physically capable of driving one. But, in a system of equal distribution, it is easy to imagine that everyone would get blood pressure medication—even if they didn’t need it; and no one would get a Lamborghini because not everyone can drive one. (That’s some strange logic but it pales in comparison to what has actually been put into practice by humans on this planet. People used to view owning each other as property as ‘normal’.) It is important to note, however, that this equal-equitable distinction is wholly irrelevant in the discussion of Rights and Liberties. If Rights and Liberties are to have any meaning then they must be applied equally. By Rights, I mean the set of actions and expressions free from unequal treatment based upon protected characteristics; by Liberties, I mean the set of actions and expressions guaranteed to all people by government through a social contract (such as a Constitution) as permanently allowable. But, in the future envisioned by Fresco, we will have moved far beyond the supposed need for politics and government. The defining characteristics of Rights and Liberties will be built right into the system when the Earth and all of its resources are declared as the common heritage of all the world’s people.
[23] Until the military is phased out, it will likely be one of the exceptions.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)