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.
[11] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/13/a-minimum-wage-worker-cant-afford-a-2-bedroom-apartment-anywhere-in-the-u-s/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.61ed8b6adb94
[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.
[17] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanabandoim/2018/10/26/first-restaurant-with-fully-automated-kitchen-opens-in-beijing/#52d56b3a8ece
[19] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/nearly-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day
[23]
Until the military is phased out, it will likely be one of the exceptions.
