What Comes After Money

by Daniel Pinchbeck

  A second reason is that we now have a great deal of scientific knowledge about how the world works and how our own technological activities have an impact. If we design ingeniously it is entirely within our ability to configure our applied technologies to coexist respectfully with the natural processes of the biosphere.

  To keep the planet habitable we must now aim not only for our own human well-being but also the well-being of the whole system of which we are a part. This aim will mean finding ways of meeting our needs that are in line with three principles: first, that the meeting of any one need does not compromise the meeting of any other need; second, that the meeting of any one person’s needs does not compromise the meeting of any other person’s needs; and third, that the meeting of human needs in general does not compromise any of the attributes of the world—such as a functioning biosphere—that enable our needs to be met.

  A further reason is that the world actually or potentially contains everything we need. The reason we are able to meet our needs at all is because there are matching attributes in the world around us. If we recognize our needs fully and place an equal value on meeting them all, we will be obliged to look after all the corresponding aspects of the world as a whole. If we can avoid putting all our stress on one set of needs—as we have been doing—we should be able to develop processes for meeting our needs that will also bring the world into balance.

  The steps in doing this are first that we develop a holistic sense of our own needs, and second that we design integrated systems that can meet our needs and at the same time form part of the balance and functioning of the whole. This is essentially how the natural ecosystem as a whole is already organized, so we could say that we are looking for an ecosystemic form of organization for human life within the planetary ecosystem. By analogy with computer operating systems, we could think of this as an ecosystemic operating system for planet earth.

  Ecosystems in general are systems that meet the needs of their participants (of whatever species) through mutual interaction and reciprocity. The first part of the word ecosystem is derived from the Greek word for household, oikos. The general idea behind the word is of a system whereby the household runs. So, without going too far from its biological sense, we could think of the word ecosystem as representing a “home-locality needs-meeting system.” The various human needs–meeting subsystems could then be thought of as subsidiary ecosystems within the natural global ecosystem. Using the word ecosystem signifies that these systems can meet needs and also interact cooperatively with the overall global ecosystem.

  The process of designing these ecosystems would start with an assessment of human needs. The same basic needs exist everywhere, but the specifics differ in each locality and community, and for each organization in meeting the needs of its members and those it serves. Every group, community, or organization applying this approach would have to carry out its own detailed needs assessment at its own scale of operation and at each level of description (as discussed earlier). Because of the range of knowledge required—from ecology to social science—the assessment team would need to comprise individuals with expertise in the various need areas. The process would have to be open and participatory, to ensure that all the needs of everyone affected would be represented. The assessment would involve the subjective appraisal of needs by a group of people. This assessment could be based on emerging protocols such as “consensus design” in architecture as developed by Christopher Day, and the “science of qualities” being pioneered by the biologist Brian Goodwin.5

  A locally relevant needs-meeting system—a local ecosystem—would then be designed and developed for meeting each group of needs (the rationale for a local focus is discussed below). Material-level needs (Level -3) would be met by an industrial ecosystem;6 life-support needs (Level -2) by a bio-agricultural ecosystem; social needs (Level -1) by a social reciprocity ecosystem; and human-level needs (level 0) by a human development ecosystem. (The ability to pursue needs at the more elusive +1 level would be assured by freedoms of individual religious and spiritual inquiry and practice, always operating within the criteria of noninterference with the meeting of other human needs.)

  The design of these ecosystems would use and synthesize the existing range of human knowledge. They would mesh with each other so that the functioning of one ecosystem would not compromise the functioning of any other (through an emphasis on design ingenuity rather than trade-off, as described by Roger Martin in The Opposable Mind.)7 They would also mesh with the larger surrounding or adjacent ecosystems of each type. Meshing with local and larger-scale natural ecosystems would be achieved by features that would sustain and restore natural ecosystems rather than merely exploiting or degrading them. Protocols such as The Natural Step, a Swedish sustainability method, would provide the design criteria for eco-compatibility.

  EMERGENCE OF A CELLULAR ECONOMY

  The integration or meshing of the four types of ecosystem would be achieved by a design synthesis of industrial ecosystems, bio-agricultural ecosystems, social reciprocity ecosystems, and human development ecosystems, coming together into a general socio-economic and governance system that is itself nested in and compatible with local and global natural ecosystems. These combined ecosystems could then be called “general ecosystems.” General ecosystems would be defined as integrated systems that provide the essential needs of a human group, community, or organization in a locally comprehensive, autonomously directed, and ecologically sound way.

  The focus on localness does not imply that everything would be restricted to local scale, merely that locally scaled general ecosystems would be the basic building bricks or “cells” of the larger system. The economy and society as a whole would be structured as a mosaic of these cellular subsystems, which would be the primary units of organization. These cells would be communities organized to meet the full range of human needs locally, not in a quest for self-sufficiency, but simply to ensure that all the needs are indeed met, an important distinction. An element of self-sufficiency would be needed for this, but most cells would also specialize in activities or production that could be exported to other cells, while importing other specialized offerings—somewhat like the role of cells in the body.

  The prospect of trade between cells raises the question of money. In our present market economy, money is regarded as the primary means of accessing needs. A cellular economy built up from general ecosystems would be a system designed to meet needs through its intrinsic structure, so the role of money would be less dominant.

  Money is a means of accounting for certain types of human interactions, so if we revalue our sense of being human, many types of relationships would be demonetized as they become less transactional. The design of general ecosystems would allow this by raising the general level of social reciprocity. This implies that the use of money for many everyday activities would be greatly reduced.

  At the moment money reinforces reductionism. We increasingly think we can use it to obtain all our needs, a view encouraged by consumerism, despite the old admonition that money cannot buy happiness. Money is literally something material, and just as we have allowed our material-level needs (Level -3) to dominate, we have allowed money itself to determine our sense of human needs. This is what happens when we say that something cannot be done because it is uneconomic. In a revalued cellular economy we might override such a view to assert that something should be done even though it is “uneconomic” in our current sense of the term.

  In a cellular economy money is likely to be used very flexibly. For example local non-fiat currencies might be used in the design of general ecosystems to track the provision of specific needs. If trade between cells requires conversion of value from one money system to another this might well be carried out differently. At the moment exchange rates are determined by market transactions that reflect the money surplus or deficit position of different areas, in effect a value comparison based on material-level needs (Level -3). A cellular economy might overr
ide this material-level dominance. For instance, exchange rates might be set by equalizing the local cost of a selection of foods that provide a day’s calorie intake (say 2,000 calories) in the two different areas. This would ensure that trade was always fair in terms of its effect on nutrition, which is not the case today.

  In short, money is likely to be less important in a cellular economy, but where it is present it would be used to express a human rather than a material approach to value.

  APPROPRIATE SCALE

  Successful general ecosystem cells would not simply grow in size by “scaling” like growing businesses. As cellular subsystems they would spread by replication, not by gigantism, through independent re-creation of the entire ecosystemic cell. If a particular general ecosystem design proved successful, other communities could reproduce it. Expansion by whole system replication while keeping the cell size small would be vital to preserve the essential feature of the general ecosystem—its ability to meet the full range of human needs by organizing locally. At larger size scales—eco-regional, national, and supranational—the society and economy would be a patchwork of similar and dissimilar but complementary ecosystemic cells linked by mutual trade.

  Part of the rationale for the primacy of local scale is that a variety of factors and trends indicate that future economic and social relocalization might be both desirable and feasible. This can be seen on a variety of fronts. Socially, relatively small groups form the primary unit of structure. For example, cross-cultural studies in sociology and anthropology indicate that the maximum size of a genuine social network such as a village is about 150 members, and this is known as the “Rule of 150” or Dunbar’s Number. This number may be related to the average human ability to recognize people and keep track of emotional information about all members of a group. Agriculturally, if basic foods are grown locally they are fresh and seasonal, with corresponding ecological and health benefits. Industrially, in spite of the well-known concept of economy of scale concept, recent thinking about flexible demand-led “lean manufacturing” leads to smaller plants close to consumers, rather than huge centralized plants at a distance. Technological developments such as 3-D printing are also heading in this direction, as production equipment becomes smaller and more flexible. Various economies of scale still exist, but the viable scale of manufacturing is progressively reducing in size as technology advances. In economics, the success of industrial clusters also emphasizes the value of local scale. Politically too, the smooth functioning of democratic systems depends on the vitality of local political engagement.

  The exact size or scale implied by “local” is suggested by these factors but not precisely defined. A balance would need to be struck between a scale small enough for certain kinds of human interrelatedness, and large enough for certain activities to have a minimum viable size. A working definition of local could be expressed in, say, numbers of people, geographic area, or travel time, but these factors all interrelate and change over time. Historical analysis of human settlements shows that their average radius has been roughly equal to the distance that could be traveled in half an hour by the prevailing transport technology. As transport speed has increased, so has the population size of towns and cities, so they no longer offer a good social definition of local. Their ecological footprint has also vastly expanded. This scale problem inspired the “new urbanism movement,” an urban planning initiative that designs village-like urban layouts clustered around rapid transit stations. The concept of general ecosystems goes beyond this, potentially being something like a localized integration of village-like urban form, economically independent production clusters, closed-loop recycling, ecologically balanced food production, intimate social scale, and civic self-governance.

  The ultimate benchmark for the scale of locally focused socio-economic organization is the individual’s experience of how human needs are met. Imagine a child growing up in a community organized as a general ecosystem. Because the system would meet all the fundamental needs of the people in the community, the child would experience a high quality of life. He or she would be able to see directly, as part of everyday experience, how the entire system worked and was operated by people belonging to the community. Much of the child’s education would involve witnessing how all the important parts of the system were designed, created, interrelated, and maintained. This would be much more likely to foster a feeling of personal involvement and responsibility, ecological awareness, economic autonomy, local political self-determination, and give a comprehensive insight into the way the world works. In these terms, local might be both justified and defined as whatever scale of general ecosystem allowed a child to have this kind of experience growing up.

  In preindustrial times, most children grew up on farms or in small towns and villages, where they would directly witness how things were made, how food was grown, how social order emerges among animals, and what distinguishes humans. However, they may not have experienced a high level of social justice and mobility, or the freedom to develop themselves. The modern era has made great headway toward these things, but at the cost for most people of any comprehensive sense of how the world as a whole works, and with a loss of any real sense of participation and responsibility. Some form of general ecosystemic organization might therefore be the key characteristic of a future “transmodern era” that would combine the benefits of modernity with a restored sense of direct personal participation and the security of belonging to a coherent community.

  These speculative thoughts about general ecosystems are intended as an exploration of future possibilities rather than a prediction of the future. Building on a way of revalidating the full range of human needs, the general ecosystem concept is a possible framework for organizing society to meet human needs in full.

  CONCLUSION

  We live in a world in which most needs of most people in most places are not fully met. The forces of modernity that shaped our world have given us unrivalled power to meet human needs, yet the shortfall persists and the general situation becomes steadily more chaotic.

  We try to solve our increasingly complex problems by throwing more money at them to deploy more physical resources. Our overemphasis on the physical often actually crowds out and reduces our ability to meet other needs. Ever more money is soaked up and the problems remain. Despite our vastly increased technological capabilities we have a growing “problem of the whole” that we do not know how to address.

  Before the industrial era we did not have to worry about this. The “pattern of the whole” was simply inherited from the historical past. Social and economic relationships, and the relationship of humans to their natural environment, were not things that anyone consciously thought out. The roots of these things had arisen in the immemorial past, and most people regarded them as God-given, along with nature itself.

  In the modern period, scientific knowledge and technology expanded into the old unconsciously shaped world and progressively cut away its moorings. We now urgently need to respond to the growing chaos of the whole with a consciously determined repatterning, but we have no obvious pattern to follow. We have a greatly expanded view of human agency, and a repertoire of sophisticated and powerful tools. But we lack an organizing pattern that combines our scientific knowledge with wisdom about our place in the whole.

  In order to resolve this impasse, it is useful to heed the admonition attributed to Albert Einstein: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” The mode of thinking primarily responsible for creating our current predicament is the application of reductionism as a means of generating knowledge. Although successful in many ways, it has had the unwanted effect of gradually reducing our picture of human beings, changing how we value ourselves and others.

  The corrective response suggested here centers on a revaluation of human beings and a corresponding reintegration of human needs. It builds on this to propose a simple but comprehensive pattern of organization that has the potential to
provide a new fundamental framework for achieving socio-economic continuity and ecological sustainability.

  The pattern of the whole for which we search is the same as the pattern of ourselves. Once we recognize our needs fully and place an equal value on meeting them all, we will be obliged to look after all the corresponding aspects of the world as a whole, which actually or potentially contains everything we need.

  The message of The Trap was that our reductionist model of human beings has created a cage for human beings in modern society. Our release, and our ability to solve “the problem of the whole,” now depend on rediscovering the wholeness of being human and applying it in our relationships with each other and with the world as a whole.

  22

  ORIGINAL WEALTH AND PEOPLE’S CAPITALISM

  STEVE BHAERMAN

  Not surprisingly, America’s founders had a deep understanding of “natural economy,” acknowledging that nature’s renewable wealth was abundant and only needed tending and harvesting from humans willing to do the work. Consider the freedom this provided. In the Old World, land was held strictly by lords and hereditary landowners. Ordinary people had absolutely no chance to acquire land, and consequently could never become wealthy.