The graphic shown above features in a early article of mine entitled Fiduciary Funding for Global Ubuntu. The graphic warns of the negative feedback loop caused by the prevailing cultures of pronatalism and coercive consumerism which are entrenched in our media and education. The article points out that in order to escape from the trap of today’s ecocidal model of growth economics we need to provide subsistence for everyone. This is a prerequisite to escape from the trap of today’s ecocidal model of growth economics. We are in a world dominated by coercive consumerism and the desire for financial profit. We have developed all sorts of services and industries simply in order to make a profit. We cannot simply stop all that ecological harm unless we enable the workforce to continue to subsist.
All our frantic industry and expansionism exacerbates the ecological crisis that we face. Elaborating on this phenomenon, there are two helpful articles: Most Work and All Work For Profit Is A Sin Against Human and Mother Nature | by Ray Katz, and The Nonviolent Revolution Is Here | by Ray Katz. In the latter article Katz wisely observes that ‘We (free people) have been particularly foolish. We have been willing slaves. We have been told that this is the only way and we believed them. Many still do.’
Throughout my life, during appeals for funding to feed starving people, I would be thinking ‘Why aren’t we teaching about family planning and ecological impact?’. To return within the carrying capacity of Earth we would need to encourage and facilitate a voluntary global birth strike and minimal consumption per capita.
Funding Universal Basic Provision
We are now seeing a crescendo of awareness about the ten megarisks that we face. Those working in the financial world understand that our financial model is unsustainable; and that it has been becoming increasingly unstable and unjust for decades. My Ubuntu article suggested that the fiduciary duties relating to pension funds aught to be enough to persuade the pension fund managers not to invest in stock markets that operate within an ecocidal economic model.
Another means to fund UBP lies the new concept of ‘Limitarianism’ which Ingrid Robeyns’ proposes in her book by the same name. Robeyns argues the case for a wealth cap, and suggests that two million dollars might be a suitable ceiling.
Binomial Economics – A societal new concept
Another helpful idea suggest that we separate UBP out from economic models entirely. In this article defining: Binomial Economics the author argues that UBP is a prerequisite that sits outside the debate about economic models. The author is Red Slider from SubStack. His paper envisions how we might enable everyone to subsist. Below, I have paraphrased what I understand about the concept of Binomial Economics from chatting with Red Slider.
Binomial economics removes the most troublesome and pernicious element found in all economic systems and their arguments from the reach of whatever dominant economic system may be preferred.
The part that is removed from the purview of economic thinking is the matter of providing every individual, regardless of status, class or station, with the essential provisions of sustaining their lives and permitting them to participate in their society. That is all that is covered in the paper describing binomial economics. The discussions about socio-economic models are irrelevant; binomial economics is not part of that debate, it is a separate concept.
The foundation for isolating the most serious failure of all economic systems rests on the answer to the question of why we have societies and their attendant economic systems at all? A primary answer is that they (falsely) promise to offer the provisions needed to sustain life and its enjoyments far better than leaving the matter to some Darwinian form of competitive anarchy. That is certainly one of the principle reasons for even having a modern global society. But it is one that all economic systems fail to provide. They just do not do that. Binomial economics does, it is voluntary and leaves room for those who wish to opt out of it and pursue their ambitions without such supports.
By removing the need to be concerned with the essentials of life, labour, can no longer be held hostage to threat of being deprived of those supports should they fail to comply or otherwise lose the jobs that provide those essentials under the monolithic systems we now use. No matter what economics the dominant system employs, the binomial part of it stays out of its reach. Employers must, therefore, offer better reasons to stay on a job and comply with their bosses rather than simply subsisting through binomial economics. Walking away from a job becomes a real option with the concept of binomial economics, since the essential supports will always be there. That substantially puts an end to the work-slavery that entraps us all, no matter which economic system is operating.
Binomial Economics does not belong to the dominant economy or the system of governance. It is more on the order of our grand jury system which, as the Supreme Court declared, does not belong to any of the other three branches of government. The implication of that decision (Williams, 1976) was that there was only one other branch of government our grand jury system could belong to — the We the People branch. Binomial Economics is much like that, a structure outside the branches of our economy and our government, one that belongs to the We the People branch.
Our economic systems, even forward looking ideas, don’t solve the problem of insuring that everyone has the basic necessities (food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc.) BE provides that to everyone, much like an earned insurance policy. People spend a few years producing, from the surplus of their labour, the things considered necessities to survive and sustain oneself. It’s like the Civilian Conservation Corps camps during the Depression and the FD Roosevelt Administration, only instead of make-work projects such as roads, forestry clearing, or public art or community service work, they work at producing necessities. During their time of BE service, they get room and board and a few other essentials, just like they did under the FDR work projects. But the surplus of their labour goes into the general public reserves to guarantee that those who lack the essentials, for whatever reason, can get them.
My understanding is that the proposed societal concept of Binomial Economics operates in tandem with any economic model; it ensures that people can always subsist, i.e. BE is a model for delivering UBP. The option to do more than subsist remains whilst there is an operational economic model running alongside BE. If BE is in place and the existing operational model collapses, that collapse will not prevent people from subsisting. The paper on BE is essentially suggesting how BE might operate, and therefore it offers some practical ideas in relation to achieving UBP.
Just like our prevailing modern civilisation, any UBP model will fall foul of the biophysical limits of Earth unless it is combined with an urgent aspiration to return within the carrying capacity of Earth. Therefore, I suggest that at this point in human history we need to combine the concept of BE/UBP together with equitable economic Degrowth and a voluntary global birth strike.
Pulling Ideas Together
With growing food insecurity and wealth inequality we need to achieve the aim of UBP for everyone, Bionomial Economics offers some ideas going forwards. Red’s ideas might assist with the realisation of the crude ideas expressed in my Ubuntu article.
With regards to designing a new society, readers may find the book by Reed Kinney of interest; it is free to download: Decentralized Civilization and Egalitarian Community
Another author who has published a series of books that are helpful in these turbulent and challenging times, is Richard Flyer, his books describe the birthing of the Symbiotic age. Both Richard Flyer and Reed Kinney are leading communities who are experimenting with these ideas to achieve self-sufficiency outside of the prevailing economy.
With regards to addressing the increasingly unstable global financial systems, the book by David Kauders called The Greatest Crash suggests how we might replace our flawed system. The ideas suggested would require alterations to the legal framework around finance.
Our legal framework is designed to protect and maintain our existing wealth hierarchy and socio-economic framework. The same flaw applies to education, politics, health, industry, security, and commerce; all of these facets to our society need a rethink. With regards to religions, many religious leaders have been corrupted by the need to make a financial profit. This does not mean that the core religion is at fault, it is simply that the religious leaders are obliged to conform to our unjust socio-economic model. Some religious leaders are now exposing the hypocrisy (starts at 00:41).
The SIFA plan (Supplementary Income For All) was considered by the United Nations Commons Cluster and explored by Bill Graham from the Rotarians. It is a flawed but helpful idea that could help to launch a replacement economy. My article summarising the flaws is several years old. I do not believe that they have addressed the flaws that I identified at that time.
Another unusual and helpful idea from Red Slider relates to a 100% death tax. If we transition to a tandem of equitable Degrowth and BE/UBP in which we commit to a voluntary global birth strike then this idea makes a lot of sense. Red’s argument is that individual wealth is accumulated only by virtue of the structures of the whole of society. Therefore, it is only right that such wealth should be returned to the whole of society when a person is done with it. His article on this topic can be found here: poems4change.org/essays/100-percent-death-tax.pdf
Moving Large Corporations into Public Ownership
In my crude envisioning process, large corporations like Amazon and Meta represent both part of the problem and part of the solution. If the mindset shift to equitable economic Degrowth continues to gather pace, then there may be a way to persuade the very wealthy to let go of the financial stranglehold that they have on the rest of us. This may result in them donating their shares in some of these big companies into an emergency eco-recovery operation. The owners are currently obedient to the unjust socio-economic structure in which we are all enslaved, they are not enemies. We created the society in which they rose to acquire so much power. Once we all agree that we need to dismantle the wealth hierarchy, the very rich will understand the need to contribute to the process of extricating ourselves from our collective predicament.
A Guiding Aspiration
In my book Saving Us From Ourselves, I discuss the need to rethink all the institutions that underpin our modern society. I am no expert in any of these areas; my strength lies in having the moral courage to challenge the phantoms that haunt our systems thinking. In my book, I mention that our Declaration of Human Rights is flawed, in that it totally disregards the rights of other life forms and the biophysical limits of Earth. A small discussion group enabled me to hone the wording for a simple aspiration that might guide humanity into the direction of voluntary equitable economic Degrowth. The concept of a Global Aspiration to inspire voluntary equitable economic Degrowth is defined as a petition thus: Ask the UN to ratify a ‘Global Aspiration for Ecological Justice’
Two Levers at the Highest Level
Like the concept of Binomial Economics that would ensure UBP, the ‘Global Aspiration‘ is another concept that offers a powerful lever to realign our thinking, culture, and paradigms away from wealth hierarchy, pronatalism, growth economics, and military domination. These two aspirations would together steer us in the direction of voluntary, peaceful, equitable economic Degrowth. Both of these concepts would impact our thinking from the highest point in the leverage points framework that is described by Donella Meadows and shown in the graphic below. The United Nations represents our attempts to collaborate peacefully.
Sadly, all the fine work on the Sustainable Development Goals sits within the prevailing unsustainable paradigms of pronatalism, growth economics, wealth hierarchy, and military might. For example, the Sustainable Development Goal #8 relates to work and economic growth; this webpage suggests how SDG8 might be reframed to reflect Degrowth aspirations.
