Timothy Wilken
My article was cross-posted at the Sustainable Energy Resources Yahoo Group. Bob, a reader there, wrote with a number of comments and questions:
I’m not sure that I understand the purpose for Mr. Wilken’s lengthy essay and even disagree with his title.
Thanks for reading and thinking about my essay, Bob.
I don’t propose any action in this piece. I am just making the point that those who currently control human society have no rational or moral claim to that control. And, I am further pointing out that the authority they use to claim the right to control is the concept of “property“. I am suggesting that this concept is flawed, and neither rational nor moral.
If those in control were doing a good job for all of us, then my point would be mute.
But, the very real truth is that they are destroying our home (planet earth) at least as a home for living things, squandering the inheritance of our children (the fossil fuels) and insuring that our species will soon suffer a dieoff.
The purpose of my essay is to suggest to you the reader, that you and every human has as much right (both rationally and morally) to 99% of the wealth of planet Earth as those who present claim to own it. As I wrote:
“The land and natural resources are wealth provided to us by God and Nature. The sunshine, air, water, land, minerals, and the earth itself all come to us freely. The Earth’s land and natural resources are not products of the human mind or body. They existed long before life and humankind even emerged on our planet. There exists no moral or rational basis for any individual to claim them as Property.”
I am challenging the idea that these gifts are “property”. If a claim of ownership can be made at all, it must be a claim on behalf of all humanity both the living and those yet unborn. I think our concept of property is obsolete. I am inviting you to think outside the box. Let us invent “something better”.
If the wealth of Earth really belongs to all of humanity, what might we do to make the world work better for everyone. Again, I don’t propose any specific action in this essay. It is a preamble encouraging you and other readers to think. Bob continues:
The term “ethical” may well be applied to decisions resulting from a logical discourse. Ethics have as their goal the discovery of choices that yield the best results for the society even if the emotional result for some participants is other than they would prefer. Ethics always recognizes the situational environment in which the decision must be made and often selects the lesser of evils.
OK, I agree.
The term “moral” is normative. Morals have no goal in and of themselves. They simply codify a set of common beliefs and either postulate their correctness or claim that they were mandated by some divine authority. Morals define specific acts as always right or always wrong regardless of context. Historically, morals have been dictated by those in power and were designed to perpetuate that power while making the enslaved feel that it was right and just. The divine right of kings or the christian arguments supporting slavery are obvious examples.
Your definition of moral is correct in one sense. My use of the word “moral” is the more commonly used sense of “rightness” as in your definition of “ethical”.
The goal of Mr. Wilken’s presentation appears to be elimination of historic claims to property by redefining all property as having been derived from either plunder or fortuitous accident.
I have not defined property here, although I quote to Andrew Galambos’ definition of property which is: “Property is individual man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life.” I further make no claim that ALL property has been derived from either plunder or fortuitous accident. I agree with Galambos’ definition of property. By this definition many possessions controlled by individuals would meet the criteria for “legitimate” property. My point is rather that the majority of humanity’s wealth is either plunder or gifts of nature or gifts from those humans who have lived and died before us.
My ethical analysis tells me that those gifts from nature and our human ancestors do not logically or “rightfully” belong to any individual. My scientific analysis tells me that these gifts from nature and our human ancestors do not meet the criteria for the definition of “property”. Humanity wears two equally valid faces: Humanity as Individuals, and Humanity as Community. Our present political-economic culture is blind to Humanity as Community. In the name of “Individual Rights”, any ONE is free to claim ownership of the Earth’s natural resources and exploit them for personal gain and riches. Any ONE is free to claim ownership of the cumulative “knowing” created by those humans who have lived and died before us, and exploit that “knowing” for personal gain and riches.
I assume from context that the former must be returned and the latter must be shared. May I also assume that Mr. Wilken will propose how the transfer will be forced and how the deaths of those who refuse to yield their booty will be justified? Unless Mr. Wilken is prepared to follow the argument to its logical conclusion what we have seen so far is verbal masturbation.
Again, I have proposed NO action in this essay. However, as a synergic scientist I believe in win-win-win-win relationships. I win. You win. Humanity wins. And, the Earth wins. Any proposal I make would not involve force.
Also, you can see that taking the plunder and gifts from nature and our ancestors from one set of individuals and handing them to another set of individuals would accomplish nothing.
Discussions in the predecessor group RunningOnEmpty@yahoogroups.com have already established that there are no redistributionist solutions to our current dilemma. Indeed, redistributing resources from those whose fertility would be unaffected by the loss and to those whose fertility would be increased by the gain is counterproductive.
I agree.
The purpose of this group is dictated by its title “Sustainable Energy Solutions”. No mere technological solution is sustainable because it would merely encourage further population growth until some resource other than energy becomes the limiting factor. There is also no way that any specific set of individual “green” behaviors will allow the planet to sustainably support an unlimited number of human beings. Any redistribution of wealth or power that does not reduce human numbers will simply make one group feel better temporarily at the cost of another group.
I agree.
Perfect egalitarianism ensures that all will starve and freeze in the dark at the same instant.
Perfect egalitarianism without changing our lifestyles would ensure that all starve and freeze in the dark at the same instant. I would suggest your conclusion is not an argument against some new system that includes egalitarianism, but against the failure to change our lifestyles.
I repeat that no redistributionist solution is sustainable unless it inevitably leads to population reduction. Since Mr. Wilken has not explained how his presentation will result in said reductions, I assume that he will do so. If he does not do so, then he has misused this group as a forum for empty marxist rhetoric.
I absolutely agree that our species will have to become enormously more efficient, or a massive reduction in our population will be made by Nature with no help from any outside force.
Let me make my own position clear. The problem of the planet is the tragedy of the commons wherein the total resources required to yield a comfortable life for each of the planet’s human occupants exceeds what actually exists on the planet. There are two solutions: egalitarianism in which everyone has the same level of shared misery or an “immoral” state in which some are comfortable and some will starve. The former solves nothing but makes those who would propose it feel morally superior. The latter ensures that human numbers are reduced as they must and ensures that some shrinking number of elite can maintain a base of knowledge and technology.
So your choice of solutions would be an “immoral” state?
The shrinking elite will be sustained by resources that they wrest from those who are weaker. Human numbers will decline as the weak are eliminated.
In nature, each animal competes for territory and resources. Those who win aren’t judged to be immoral but instead are considered genetically superior. Any human attempt to undo the “plunder” increases the survival of defective genes until drought, blizzard or disease kills the lot!
Don’t say that humans aren’t animals. We most certainly are. Our so-called morals are a temporary extravagance that will disappear when another man’s food or another man’s blanket is the only thing standing between ourselves and death.
I thought the purpose of this list was to seek a future with sustainable energy resources. You seem to be proposing a future very like the one described in Mel Gibson’s Mad Max series.
I honestly don’t want that future. I am sure I would not survive there very long. I am sure that most those I love would not survive there very long. I suspect you and your family would not survive there either.
I think there is a third alternative to the two solutions you have suggested.
I think we humans could change our minds. I want us to choose a much more energy efficient lifestyle. I know as a synergic scientist that we could re-organize ourselves much more efficiently. I know as a synergic scientist we could re-organize ourselves much more responsibly.
We COULD use much less energy. We COULD have far few children.
Perhaps it is time for Humanity as Community to decide what is best for humanity.
I must also protest the use of flowery but fraudulent quotations to support a philosophical point. The quote below was fabricated by a newspaper editor and repeated by gullible people. Chief Seattle was illiterate and had an english vocabulary of fewer than 100 words.
“How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? . . . This we know: the earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. ” —Chief Seattle (~ 1854)
I am aware that there have been “claims” that this quote attributed to Chief Seattle was actually written by a newspaper editor. I don’t think it was claimed that Chief Seattle said these words in English. It was most likely a translation from his native language. It is interesting that many of those claiming the quotation was not by Chief Seattle have been closely associated with big lumber, big mining, big oil and big government. But, even if we withdraw that particular quotation, we still have seven similar quotations to consider where there is no question of authentic authorship:
“God gave the world in common to all mankind.”—John Locke (1632 – 1704)
“The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and live on.” —Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)
“The earth…and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, from the immediate gift of the creator.”—William Blackstone (1723 – 1780)
“Men did not make the earth…. It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.” —Tom Paine (1737 – 1809)
“The land, the earth God gave man for his home, sustenance, and support, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society, or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water.” —Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)
“Equity does not permit property in land…The world is God’s bequest to mankind. All men are joint heirs to it.”—Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903)
“LAND, n. A part of the earth’s surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.” —Ambrose Bierce (The Devil’s Dictionary, 1911)
Bob, again I want to thank you for taking the time to read and think about my article. I too am seeking a future that values sustainable energy resources.
Another reader Tom, from the ImageStreaming Yahoo Group, wrote:
Timothy, I don’t see how “property is a gift” from God shows in any way that we should not own it.
I didn’t say that “property” is a gift from God. I said:
“The land and natural resources are wealth provided to us by God and Nature. The sunshine, air, water, land, minerals, and the earth itself all come to us freely. The Earth’s land and natural resources are not products of the human mind or body. They existed long before life and humankind even emerged on our planet. There exists no moral or rational basis for any individual to claim them as Property.”
I am challenging the idea that these gifts are “property”. If a claim of ownership can be made at all, it must be a claim on behalf of all humanity both the living and those yet unborn. I think our concept of property is obsolete.
I am inviting you to think outside the box. Let us invent “something better”.
I reposted these comments with my answers in hopes that they might help others understand the need to move beyond property.
Bound through synergy,
Timothy Wilken, MD