a special feature the Sunday doily on environmental philosophy Number 69 Page Four. Sunday, December 3, 1972 Radical ecology: Going back to the roots i By WILLARD MILLER THE INFANT science of ecology has taught the environmental movement one overriding lesson: par- ticular problems cannot be treated in isolation. All environmental prob- lems are Interconnected. We must carry our analysis of the situation further to see that these problems are intimately linked to our economic and political structures, and the an- alysis points to some serious econom- ic, political, and philosophical issues. Growing assaults on the environ- ment can be traced to conditions that arose largely in this century. Quite simply, the productivity of the pri- vate-enterprise economy surpassed the ability of the consumer market to absorb Its output. The problem facing industry was to find ways of expand- ing consumer markets in order to keep pace with economic growth. GIVEN THAT foreign markets and deficit spending (on the military, for example) were inadequate to absorb growing productivity, means had to be found to expand the domestic market. Private enterprise chose the only means compatible with its con- tinued existence, namely, forced- dratt consumerism. Corporate inter- ests launched programs of mass ad- vertising to create in consumers needs that they had never felt before. This advertising played on insecurities and anxieties in ways we are all too fa- miliar with, artfully connecting the purchase of this or that product with the solution to our personal and so- cial problems. If we weren't sufficiently anxiety- ridden for this technique to work, in- dustry' tried to engineer attitude changes of a more "positive" sort. It tried to foster contempt for the old and make newness an end in itself. A newness fetish, nourished by more and more frequent styling changes, caused many consumers to replace perfectly servicable goods. "Private enterprise chose AP Photo "PRIDE OF CRAFT in one's work has been destroyed by the shoddiness of the goods produced. . . . The sole motive for working on such commodities is an unfulfilling one: The constraint of economic necessity to earn a living. Perhaps the greatest loss of all is the possibility of free and meaningful creative productivity." present economic institutions with- out rapidly exhausting our energy sources and raw materials. Even if we were to achieve zero population growth, present economic practices would still threaten to end our exist- ence on earth. The conclusion that follows from this brief analysis is that we environ- mentalists cannot reasonably pursue a piecemeal reform program. We are forced to recognize that growthand its concomitant environmental disas- ters are endemic to corporate capita- lism. To ask of corporations organiz- ed to produce profits that they vol- untarily curtail production and avoid growth in order to reduce environ- the only means compatible with its continued existence, namely, forced-draft con- sumerism. Corporate interests launched programs of mass advertising to create in consumers needs that they had never felt before. This advertising played on insecurities and anxieties in ways we are all too familiar with, artfully connecting the purchase of this or that product with the in the past, the principles of compe- tition and individual profit-seeking are now failing to promote the inter- ests of the community as a whole. We would be wise to consider the possi- bility of cooperation as a basis of our economic institutions, with the uses of our resources and productive ca- pacities determined by the entire community. In fact, the chief obsta- cle to our realization of a fully demo- cratic society would be removed were we to place industry in the hands of government, thereby clearing the way for the government to be placed where it belongs - in the hands of the people. Democratc socialism WHAT IS BEING proposed here is a democratic political structure combined with a socialist economy predicated on non-growth. I don't contend that all socialist economies are free of environmentally unsound practices. Most socialist economists, in fact,-have shared with their capi- talist counterpartsgtheunquestioned assumption that growth is an un- qualified good and a major indicator of economic health. Nevertheless, so- cialist economic planning conjoined with democratic political institutions at least offers the possibility of plan- ning for a non-growth economy. There are at least three reasons why socialism, unlike capitalism, of- fers this possibility. First, surplus profits will not be created only to re- quire growth to provide a place for investment (which will create more profits, which will need more growth to provide investment opportunities, which will create more profits, etc., etc.). Second, considerations of per- sonal and corporate profit and power for the few need not be the criteria by which planning decisions are made. Finally, and perhaps most im- portantly, the control exercised over our political institutions by corpor- ate interests, at the expense of the needs of the people, will cease to be a primlry determinant of our politi- cal and economic life. IT SHOULD ALSO be noted that a non-growth economy will require a redistribution of the wealth and de- cision-making power over the whole of the people in order to prevent war between the socio-economic classes. The myth of economic mobility in our society has been sustained by eco- nomic growth. So any attempt to achieve non-growth without such a redistribution would render present inequities permanent. Thus, not only is democratic socialism the only mod- el on which non-growth is a real pos- sibility, it is also the only model on which non-growth could occur in the context of an enduring political and economic situation. Ownership vs. stewardship IF WE SERIOUSLY consider the al- ternative suggested here, we will be challenging some cherished and unquestioned presuppositions of our society. We will have to take a hard look at such conceptions as "private property," and ask whether this no- tion embodies an unrestricted right to use one's property as one sees fit. It has been taken for granted that ownership of a piece of property con- fers the right to strip-mine it for its minerals or to clear-cut it for its timber. But the crucial question is whether property rights necessarily encompass the right to abuse natural resources on which all our lives de- pen d. "Spaceship earth" is more than a metaphor: the phrase points quite literally to a crucial feature of our predicament. We are all dependent on the same life-support systems, and it is clearly absurd to claim that any of us should be allowed to sabotage those systems for personal profit. At most, private ownership of land should be construed as a stewardship where one has a responsibility to pre- serve the quality of the land - land which also belongs to all the unborn generations of human beings. PRIVATE PROPERTY is ecologic- ally most pernicious in the sphere of private ownership of industry. By continuing to suppose that a few men have the right to claim owner- ship of the productive capabilities of our society, we deify the concept of private property in the face of the obvious inequities such private own- ership =allows. Not only is private in- dustry the engine behind economic growth (and environmental decline), but it also adversely affects the peo- ple who work for it. Widespread alien- ation results from pointless and numbing work on goods of dubious (or negative) social worth for the sake of someone else's profit. Pride of craft in one's work has been de- stroyed by the shoddiness of the goods produced. (This qualitative de- cline, as we have argued, has been brought on in large measure by the need to enlarge consumer markets by designing obsolescence into pro- ducts.) The sole motive for working on such commodities is an unfulfill- ing one: the constraint of economic necessity to earn a living. Perhaps the greatest bility of free< productivity. "The question whether to reject free enterprise has been rendered moot, however, since monopoly capitalism has made free enterprise impossible. Those who defend free enterprise defend a fiction. Cooperation provides the only viable alternative to present practice. Only when it is thoroughly subject to public control will industry employ environmentally sound practices in producing well-made, durable goods that satisfy real human needs instead of false needs manufactured by mass advertisitg to create expand- ing markets." d r i:ty of"personaslp o t w:ould.: i , "isi .:.:r>::r.": Private vs. personal property ASSAULTS on the institution of pri- vate property - nationalization of the means of industrial produc- tion, for example, and land-use re- form - do not affect the ownership or possession of personal property. Defenders of the prerogatives of pri- vate property all too often equate it with personal property and warn that if their prerogatives are chal- lenged, peoples' homes, furniture, and even clothing will be taken from them. But this is simply not so. We can deny the right to rape our re- sources, and the right to engage in modes of production that wantonly produce both pollution and waste, without jeopardizing personal prop- arty at all. In fact, the utility and loss of all is the possi- and meaningful creative 4 solution to our personal and social problems." freedom now becomes the freedom to purchase and own as much as one can. Freedom means being able to choose between 25 different models of refrigerator, all of which will fall apart in a few years. We look with pity on-the people of less "developed" countries, who have only two models to choose between, as less free than we are - although both of their mod- els may last 25 years. NONE OF THIS would have to con- tinue if productivity were publicly controlled. We could be producing on- ly durable versions of things we real- ly need. Advertising as we know it would be superfluous. We could work shorter hours because much less pro- ductive and consumptive activity would be required of us. The social utility of our work would be apparent and the quality of the product would be high, allowing a rebirth of pride in craftsmanship. We could use our increased leisure in creative and ful- durability of personal property would be improved. Free enterprise IT HAS BEEN an article of faith since Adam Smith that if every member of a community seeks his own interests through free competi- tive enterprise, what emerges is in the best interests of the community as a whole. If one supposes free en- terprise ever tohave existed, no more obvious refutation of Smith's claim can be found than the destruction of our environment. The question whether to reject free enterprise has been rendered moot, however, since monopoly capitalism has made free enterprise impossible. Those who de- fend free enterprise defend a fiction. Cooperation provides the only via- ble alternative to present practice. Only when it is thoroughly subject to public control will industry employ environmentally sound practices in producing well-made, durable goods that satisfy real human needs instead of false needs manufactured by mass advertising to create expanding mar- kets. Once these false needs are felt as one's own, they make one less free. Beyond the creation of markets, the most insidious function of false needs is to bind people to lucrative but otherwise unsatisfying careers. Once the consumer is victimized by such needs, the word "freedom" un- dergoes a perverse transformation: y.4y &.SAaeew. ~ .fl~ 0 AV .u :lf.....w.....trA"'- ............ .....:... "sS4 .. Still, there were many for whom newness was not a strong enough mo- tive to discard and replace - many who did not see waste as a virtue. Planned functional obsolescence was instituted for the benefit of this ob- stinate type. Now everyone was forced to replace his car and appli- ances periodically, not merely be- cause they had become antiquated but because they had ceased to work. Buy now, pay later FINALLY, BECAUSE there was lit- tle change in his real income - his purchasing power - the consum- er was introduced to installment buying and other forms of credit. He was pressed to buy far beyond his actual wealth. And incidentally, there was money to be made not only on the commodities themselves, but also on the loans secured to pay for them. All these innovations had a substan- tial effect on the consumer market. People bought more and more. Overproduction is no accident of American efficiency; it is endemic to corporate capitalism, which must provide outlets for investment funds - profits looking for a place to earn more profits. These investments spur the growth of productivity, and to be profitable, this increased productivity must be accompanied by increased consumer buying. As long as our economy continues to be a profit sys- tem, as presently constituted, it will need to grow. mental impact is to ask the impossi- ble. IF WE ATTEMPT to enact strong federal legislation to control indus- trial degradation of the environment, we are immediately confronted by severe difficulties. For an essential element of such legislation would be curtailment of economic growth. But if growth is endemic to it, then en- forced nongrowth would be fatal to our economic system. What legisla- tive body is prepared to legislate the death of corporate capitalism? How many of our legislators, many of whom receive a large portion of their campaign funds from corporations, are willing to bite the .hands that feed them? Corporate vs. public needs THE HISTORY of legislation in our time is rife with examples of cor- porate interests being served at the expense of public needs; the oil de- pletion allowance, for instance, or Congressional permission for mining to continue in Wilderness Areas until 1984. Such actions cannot be justified by our energy and resource needs. As we have shown, these needs are made, excessively great only in order to sup- port such wasteful (but profitable) practices as annual model changes, planned obolescence, and the satis- faction of fabricated wants. In light of this analysis and the re- sistance of corporations to environ- mental reforms, it is clear that our filling ways, spending much less of our "free time" maintaining our stock of possessions. By producing less with greater care, we could hold the line against further environmen- tal degradation .and begin the diffi- cult task of reclaiming what we can of what has already been despoiled. International immorality INTERNATIONALLY, we could con- sume considerably less than our present 50 percent of the world's an- nual production of nonrenewable na- tural resources. The immorality of our nation's current practice, wherein 6 percent of the world's people consume half its resources, is all too clear. With. a non-growth economy, we could use considerably less more wisely. We could allow other nations to develop to meet the real needs of their, peo- ples. And the vast economic empire we maintain around the world to pro- vide us with the excessive amounts of raw materials and markets demanded by our overproductivity c o u 1 d be eliminated under the cooperative and democratic governance of our econo- my. An ecologically viable society ALL THE ISSUES are related to the environmental crisis, and the last- ing solution of any of them requires the resolution of them all. This is the fundamental lesson taught by ecol- ogy. Thus, an ecological consciousness issues in a radical consciousness. Rad- icals must come to see the importance of environmental issues to their po- litical analyses and programs. And environmentalists m u s t recognize that a genuine commitment to a de- cent environment for ourselves and for future generations requires noth- ing less than radical solutions. IF, FOLLOWING Marcuse, we de- fine economic and political freedom as freedom from domination by eco- nomic and political s y s t e m s over which we have no control, then it should be clear that we live in an un- free society. Earlier pleas for a fully democratic society with an equitable distribution of wealth were based primarily on the moral imperative for social justice. Unhappily, there have been and still are many for whom the concept of social justice is a. s .... ..:.. <, .