Category Archive
The following is a list of all entries from the Deep Economy category.
John Rawls and McKibben’s Deep Economy
My longish piece evaluating McKibben’s ideas about local economies was placed in the latest Philosopher’s Carnival. My analysis was informed by some of our class discussion, so thanks to you all for talking about your ideas.
Here is what I presented in class yesterday:
John Rawls was concerned with what we call distributive justice and the question of what we should do about inequalities in society. Should goods be distributed equally to everyone? Should we permit vast differences in social and economic status? How are justice and socioeconomic opportunity tied to each other?
This is relevant to the book Deep Economy in two ways.
1. First, we can use the justice framework to make the case that our social system (that is, our system of social policy, ethics, and economic exchange) is conventional. We have a certain social/political/economic system and it produces certain results. But we don’t have to have that system. It might be the most just system, or it might undermine justice. If it does not produce the maximum degree of justice, then we should try to change it so that it is more just. In particular, we should always be working to try to improve the status of those that have the least, and we should always try to give people equality of opportunity.
This observation supports McKibben in his attempt to rethink economics, and in particular in his attempt to replace some market trends with a deeper concern for community. He argues very much like someone in the justice framework would: he argues that deeper and more robust communities will make people happier and will be more economically stable. This last point is important, because in the justice framework, people are risk-averse.
2. A second way that Rawls’s justice framework can be linked to the book is McKibben’s recognition that for people who are living at a subsistence level, access to global markets makes more sense than pursuing deeper, local economies. That’s because McKibben, like Rawls, knows that the concerns of people who have the least social status and economic goods will be different than those who have plenty.
Local Economies
McKibben doesn’t so much offer a clear and cohesive argument in Ch. 4, as he does give a long list of ways in which returning to doing things in smaller communities would help us to lead better lives. One thing we discussed in class is that what makes local “better” is not the same for each of the endeavors he mentions.
RADIO, MEDIA: In the brief book Republic.com, Cass Sunstein laid out an argument for why the Internet has the potential to polarize our political views because we are more likely to be ignorant of other people’s viewpoints. Likewise, mass media contribute to our ignorance of local issues and regional values. I strongly recommend Sunstein’s book, and you might be interested in Free Press, an organization that promotes media reform to strengthen democracy.
McKibben talks about the value of locally-owned and operated radio stations. Ours include:
DISTRIBUTED POWER GENERATION: As we discussed in class, distributed power generation might contribute to increasing the efficiency of our infrastructure and overall energy sustainability. There are many limitations working against it: some are physical and some technological; others are political, commercial, and cultural. This is certainly a problem that the engineers, technologists, and businesspeople that RIT graduates can contribute their creativity to.
COHOUSING: These are communities that are usually designed for increased environmental sustainability, but McKibben’s appraisal centered on the benefits of living in close-knit supportive communities. The EcoVillage in Ithaca is an example.
LOCAL CURRENCY: McKibben’s example was Burlington Bread, but again, the People’s Republic of Ithaca can be our example, with the first modern-day local currency in the US, the Ithaca HOURS. The support for local currencies seems to be primarily that it is in communities’ interests to keep money inside the community.
As a class, you developed the insight that what is missing from McKibben’s book is an analysis of how communities interact, and specifically how this advocacy for local communities and local decision-making and creative endeavors affects (and is affected by) globalization and global poverty.
I’ve written more about what I think the ethical implications of this chapter are here.
McKibben, Chapter 4
“All for One, and One for All”: we discussed the benefits of tight communities–and the disadvantages, such as a loss of privacy, of options, and (sometimes) freedoms. McKibben’s argument is implicitly utilitarian: that local economies produce more satisfaction and less harm for more people than our current economy. How would someone argue with him on this point? Probably, it would have to be done on the basis of showing that his calculation of the benefits and disadvantages left something out.
One such disadvantage (which we did not discuss) is the possibility that tighter communities are related to higher levels of conflict between different communities–nationalism, racism, and the policing of ingroup/outgroup loyalties.
A question to consider is whether the only way to achieve the postive results that McKibben attributes is to cultivate cohesive communities that are local in geographical terms. Does technology permit us to participate in communities that are tight and supportive but distributed in space? Although McKibben is concerned with the transport of goods and the environmental toll of transportation, our economy is increasingly based in services, and knowledge and communication are no longer bound by space.
Along these lines, I heard a report on NPR yesterday that, for a variety of reasons, local banks are much less affected by the banking crisis than the large conglomerates are. You can listen to the story here.
Tim passed along this interesting timed map of WalMart’s spread.
Films that examine environmental ethics
We haven’t had a film clip in class for a couple of weeks, but we’ll find time for more viewing toward the end of the course. Ethics is amenable to learning through the film medium because learning to think philosophically is not just about amassing knowledge but about identifying and thinking through problems and observing how others frame ethical problems.
Here are some of my recommendations for films that are related to the issues raised in Deep Economy and other problems in environmental sustainability. Many of these have trailers available on the web. I’d love to hear your further suggestions!
About our energy economy:
About climate change:
About wildlife:
About local economies:
About waste:
- The Story of Stuff (20 min., online)
About food:
About industrialization and natural environments:
- Manufacturing Landscapes (showing on campus in January)
The Year of Eating Locally
The professor of the class which follows ours (Dr. Scott, Criminal Justice Department) saw that we were talking about Deep Economy and wondered what you guys think of it. I told him that you have had a range of reactions, from thinking that it was hysterical to thinking that it was boring to thinking that it was on the mark.
He said that his reaction is (and I’m capturing the spirit though not the exact wording) that it opens the reader’s eyes to some terrifying news. It brings you up short. It makes you think about what you are doing and about how fast our lives could change for the worse.
Care to share your reactions here in your own words?
Sustainability
Today we discussed the Introduction and first chapter of Bill McKibben’s book Deep Economy.
We looked at his idea that aiming at “MORE” (economic growth) and “BETTER” (improvements in quality of life) are no longer in sync.
We also discussed what makes people happy and the difference between what people anticipate will affect their happiness and what really makes them happy. If you think this is an interesting question, you might like this bloggingheads.tv interview with Eric Weiner, the author of a book on happiness.
Any further reactions to this chapter?
Environmental Ethics
This post is a reminder that on Wednesday we’ll start discussing the book Deep Economy. Although I’ll structure the discussion somewhat, this is the first of several days when we’ll practice a fairly intense and inclusive discussion method. Please come prepared by having completed the reading assignment, and do have a question or comment that you’re ready to talk about. In a classroom this size, I expect nearly universal participation.
One topic that I want to take up is something that McKibben raises in the Introduction:
We will have to make the biggest changes to our daily habits in generations–and the biggest change, as well, to our worldview, our sense of what constitutes progress. Such a shift is neither “liberal” nor “conservative.” It borrows some elements from our reigning political philosophies, and is in some ways repugnant to each.
This is a class in ethics, not in politics, and I don’t want politics to prevent us from exploring ideas together. So we will from time to time talk explicitly about whether some issues are political or not in order to keep that worry from festering.
Another theme we will return to frequently is whether a problem is a matter to be addressed by personal choice and a sense of responsibility, or whether it is a social problem that is best addressed by social or political actions.
Matt Sokol, a member of our class, sent me a link to a video by Tim Minchin (a musical comedian) called “Canvas Bags.”
This is a funny and sarcastic video, but I think that it treats the subject matter quite sincerely. Matt said
I watched an interview with him where he openly states that his songs are intended to tackle weighty/uncomfortable subjects.
Matt also passed on a video about an egoistic rationalization for philanthropy. I won’t embed it, as the language is vulgar, but if you’re interested, it’s here.
