The late Barry Commoner, who ran for President as candidate for the Citizens' Party in 1980, formulated the following Four Laws of Nature. Are these laws reasonable? Should people endeavour to live according to them? If so, what political steps should be taken in order to do so?
One of Commoner's lasting legacies is his four laws of ecology, as written in The Closing Circle in 1971. The four laws are:
Everything is Connected to Everything Else. There is one ecosphere for all living organisms and what affects one, affects all.
Everything Must Go Somewhere. There is no "waste" in nature and there is no "away" to which things can be thrown.
Nature Knows Best. Humankind has fashioned technology to improve upon nature, but such change in a natural system is, says Commoner, "likely to be detrimental to that system."
There Is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch. Exploitation of nature will inevitably involve the conversion of resources from useful to useless forms.
Originally posted by TeinosukeI liked Barry and voted for him in 1980. I'm not sure of three and think four is wrong though it somewhat hinges on how you define "useful" and "useless".
The late Barry Commoner, who ran for President as candidate for the Citizens' Party in 1980, formulated the following Four Laws of Nature. Are these laws reasonable? Should people endeavour to live according to them? If so, what political steps should be taken in order to do so?
One of Commoner's lasting legacies is his four laws of ecology, as writt ...[text shortened]... re will inevitably involve the conversion of resources from useful to useless forms.
Originally posted by TeinosukeCommoner was right about all four. We ignore him at our peril.
The late Barry Commoner, who ran for President as candidate for the Citizens' Party in 1980, formulated the following Four Laws of Nature. Are these laws reasonable? Should people endeavour to live according to them? If so, what political steps should be taken in order to do so?
One of Commoner's lasting legacies is his four laws of ecology, as writt ...[text shortened]... re will inevitably involve the conversion of resources from useful to useless forms.
From a review (in 1990!) of Commoner's Making Peace with the Planet by Stephen Jay Gould:
Barry Commoner, the author of ''Science and Survival'' and ''The Poverty of Power,'' has been speaking with a consistent voice for more than 20 years. Although he has been branded by many as a maverick, I regard him as right and compassionate on nearly every major issue. He recognizes and documents the utter failure of governments and corporations to regulate and control environmental dangers. He opts for a model of prevention rather than controlled use (recycling, not incineration, for example). He points out that such a strategy requires a massive creative investment in new (and mostly smaller) technologies. He knows that such an investment must be supported by coordinated programs for a common, and largely future, good, and that it entails higher immediate costs at the sacrifice of corporate profit. Dare the word ''socialism'' be mentioned?
He recognizes (as many in the environmental movement do not) that ''the root cause of the world population crisis is poverty,'' and that no acceptable solution will emerge without a massive amelioration of poverty by redistribution of the world's wealth (forgiveness of third-world debts to first-world nations for starters). He argues, against the radical romantics of prosperous nations, that advanced technology is here to stay, and that no back-to-the-soil or back-to-the-hunter-gatherer-style movement will ever alleviate the misery and crushing poverty of so many nations. Therefore he believes that a humane and reforming technology - based on solar power and massive recycling - must learn to be friendly to an unforgiving ecosphere. We must, in short, make ''peace with the planet.''
Is this a pipe dream? Mr. Commoner worries, of course: ''Present reality is both illogical and so massive and entrenched as to appear unalterable. Are we then condemned to an ongoing and ultimately suicidal war with the planet?'' Now I may be hopelessly naive as a political observer, but why should we despair? Has not the nearly sudden dissolution of old Eastern European politics proved that the cold war was a happenstance of a moment in history, not a structural and effectively permanent inevitability? Is not true peace with the planet therefore conceivable?
Am I being painfully stupid and impractical? Could not the world's massive military expenditures, rendered truly unnecessary, be redirected to planetary salvation without economic loss? Could we not take these military savings, launch the most massive Civilian Conservation Corps in the history of the world (the democratic counterpart of building the Egyptian pyramids or the Great Wall of China), hire every unemployed person in America at good wages for useful work, fix every bridge, fill every pothole, rake every roadside, clean every subway car, declare a two-week work project and pick up every piece of trash (for recycling of course) in every public park and on every street corner. This is not crazy. It really could be done. Where is the will, where the vision, where the coordination, where the knowledge that we must do it or ultimately perish?
A PICKLE JAR AT THE CROSSROADS
Recycling cures the ecologically harmful linearity of modern production technologies. . . . Suppose we capture, in a freeze-frame, the moment in which the glass jar is emptied of its last pickle. At this brief moment in its history, the container is still a useful object, for it is, after all, the same container that the pickle factory bought from the glass company. The container's potential usefulness could be realized by returning it to the pickle factory - as was once done with returnable beer bottles. Alternatively, the empty container could be returned to the glass manufacturer, where it would be remelted and formed into some other product or even into an identical jar that could once more carry pickles to their destiny. In either case, the once linear process is converted into a circular one. This eliminates the detrimental environmental impact that occurs at the end of the line, for it prevents the conversion of the otherwise useful container into trash.
In sum, at the moment it is emptied, poised in the householder's hand, the pickle jar is at the brink of two alternative fates. If it is tossed into the trash pail, the jar is transformed into trash, fated to contribute to all the ensuing environmental problems. On the other hand, if - perhaps first rinsed - the jar begins a voyage back to the pickle company or the glass factory, its fate is environmentally benign.
Indeed, it is even beneficial.
From ''Making Peace With the Planet.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/22/books/it-s-not-too-late-if-we-re-not-too-crazy.html?pagewanted=1
Thank you, BC.
Originally posted by TeinosukeI can't imagine why they did not prevail in 1980. 😛
The late Barry Commoner, who ran for President as candidate for the Citizens' Party in 1980, formulated the following Four Laws of Nature. Are these laws reasonable? Should people endeavour to live according to them? If so, what political steps should be taken in order to do so?
One of Commoner's lasting legacies is his four laws of ecology, as writt ...[text shortened]... re will inevitably involve the conversion of resources from useful to useless forms.
Originally posted by whodeyIn some ways he did: recycling in common now, the air and water is cleaner because of governmental regulation and environmental concerns figure predominantly in the national discourse. Right wingers bitterly fought all these ideas in the 70s but they largely lost in the national consciousness. It's true that BC's sensible, forward looking ideas haven't been implemented in full but the future is still their's.
I can't imagine why they did not prevail in 1980. 😛