Published 1999-06-01 by Derek Paul in Global issues | Sustainability

General Principles for a Sustainable Future

By Derek Paul, Professor Emeritus, Physics Department, University of Toronto. This paper is presented as a posthumous tribute to Gawithra.

Foreword

This most belated paper is an outgrowth of many experiences; and it is partly a sequel to the superordinate project of Science for Peace, which was a Working Group of that organization from 1989-92. The Working Group had hoped to identify essential features of a sustainable future, at least for limited areas of the globe. That it could go no further than it did may simply reflect the fact that envisaging the future requires knowledge that one does not bave in advance, some of it technical.

This paper instead opens up the concept of establishing a broad range of general principles, such as may be less dependent on the unknown factors about a future world, and that may be as applicable one hundred years from now as they are now. There may thus be nothing new in this paper, since much has been written piecemeal on principles, but then, isn’t this the character of eternal verities?

A superordinate principle?

In two previous papers¹² I have referred to or discussed life as being not only a phenomenon, but as a value, a human value. I began with the question: what are the values underlying research? and concluded that, at least in the field of peace research, the underlying value is life itself. In the second paper² I concluded that science is not value-free if the scientist is of such conscience or disposition that she or he adopts life as a value; and I postulated that the adoption of this value is what would “bring science back into context”, a status it had largely lost since the seventeenth century, when science and philosophy had not yet separated into their different ways. The expression “bringing science back into context” is due to Professor Bill Vanderburg³.

If we are to base a philosopby, or a set of principles upon life itself, it is best to examine for a moment what the charactersitics of living systems are, or appear to have been over the millennia. Living systems are those systems that sustain themselves as far as they can in a given state of order that preserves their identity and (usually) their ability to propagate their species into the future, beyond their own lifetimes.

In a paper presented at the 1997 World Order Conference here at Ryerson I explained in lay terms the meaning of the concept of entropy, and its direct link to disorder, in precisely the sense that a living system in too great disorder is likely near death. The mathematical concept of entropy is thus important as a negative indicator of health in the biosphere. Living systems thrive within a rather narrow range on the entropy scale⁴.

A problem with living animals is that they live (and maintain their low entropy) at the expense of the entropy of their surrondings which rises as a result of their eating and breathing, etc. The bioshpere can only restore its entropy through photosnthesis using the Sun’s radiation, and through getting rid of its surplus heat by reradiating energy into outer space. The human race has, through its bad habits as well as its excessive numbers, gone beyond the limits that ftiendly photosynthesis can restore. Changes are therefore essential, and general principles called for.

I note also that evolution has tended to produce more and more sophisticated life forms and more and more diversity, as long as it is not interfered with. Human interference seems to have arrested such processes by accelerating extinctions. If life has a purpose, it would appear to include the continuance of diversity and increase of complexity and sophistication.

All these thoughts therefore raised the question whether there isn’t a superordinate principle that would serve as a general reference point, or arbiter of smaller or more speciftc matters. This paper makes the conjecture that a Principle of Life would do just that. It would be a Principle to which one could submit any proposal in the form: does this proposal violate the purpose of Life, that is, of its bountiful continuance, diversity and increasing sophistication. Part of this conjecture is that all the many other pxinciples one might need to apply would be subsidiary to this one overriding principle.

In what follows we shall look briefly at pxinciples that have already been put forward, as well. possibly at new ones.

Subsidiary principles

A Stewardship and Ecology

I argue, following Gawithra⁵, that human beings do not own the Earth or any part of it, but necessarily must share it with other people and with other species. To think otherwise would violate the Principle of Life. Being the foremost species in consciousness homo sapiens thus becomes the chief custodian of the Earth and its biosphere. Property rights must therefore become subservient to custodianship, whatever that may entail – this would appear to be a principle that stems directly from the higher principle.

To a considerable extent, such considerations have been recognized for a long time by environmentalists and their supporters. In fact so much has gone into thinking on environmental matters that it could be folly to attempt a discussion on this subject from scratch. Instead I will refer briefly to the Declaration on the Human Environment, drafted by Barbara Ward and René Dubos for the “Only One Earth” Conference of the United Nations held in Stockholm in 1972. That Conference set up the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), and adopted the Declaration on the Human Environment. Richard Douthwaite says of this Declaration that nobody knows about it or its 26 principles⁶. It is time we revived them – see Annex 1. Douthwaite continues by saying that UNEP was “starved of funds for the next 17 years”⁶, but nevertheless managed to produce nine more little documents in which numerous other principles are to be found (Table 1). All of the matters raised by UNEP are absolutely vital. The UNEP’s long list of environmental principles may not turn out to be sufficient for every situation, but is a good start. I thus invite my Ib1eners or readers to think about them and what, if anything we should now be adding to the already impressive list. It should be noted that the principles of the Declaration overlap the last part of this paper which deals with human relations on a large scale, for example international relations.

Table I

UNEP’s Environmental Law Guidelines and Principles

Stockholm Declaration (1972)
Shared Natural resources (1978)
Weather Modification (1980)
Offshore Mining and Drilling (1982)
World Charter for Nature (1984)
Banned and Severely restricted Chemicals (1984)
Marine Pollution ftom Land-based Sources (1985)
Cairo Guidelines and Principles for the Environmentally sound Management of hazardous Wastes (1987)
Goals and Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment (1987)
London Guidelines for the Exchange of information on Chemicals in International Trade (1987)

Douthwaite continues in another chapter to introduce principles necessary for a no-growth age, since a state of no growth (at least of usage of most resources) must soon be reached if major human calamity is to be avoided in the coming century⁷. The three principles he gives span the sections of this paper. Here we insert his principle 1, namely: that one must give equal weight to the interests of future generations.

Since the UNEP was founded, much work has already been done on the concept of the human footprint. Briefly, this is defined as the smallest area of the Earth’s surface that would be required to maintain society as it now is in the long term. Recent authors suggest that the human race has extended its footprint to about three times the Earth’s actual land area, a matter that must surely be of the gravest concern⁸.

B Brotherhood and sisterhood

The brevity of this section stems from the appearance of several papers dealing with this material in the contributions to this conference⁹. Douthwaite’ s second principle for a no-growth world also belongs here⁷. It goes as follows: “valuing other people’s interests equaJIy with our own.” This must surely be an ancient principle of the widest applicability, resembling closely the second commandment of the Christian New Testament.

I mention also under this heading the important matter of partnership versus dominance in interpersonal relations. This is discussed at greater length in the next section.

C Extended brotherhood and sisterhood

Under this heading I cram all the matters which involve people interacting on a large scale – everything from politics, international relations, poverty, wealth, banking, military forces and war; in other words, how we treat each other group to group, nation to nation. Since it would be impossible to cover more than one or two points in a short paper, I invite people to start developing general principles in these areas, as well as digging up and highlighting those that already exist.

I was particulaly asked to raise at this conference the question of dominance. Very many human problems and many, if not most wars, dictatorships, etc. have stemmed from the urge to dominate.

In a recent paper entitled “Democratic Governance”¹⁰ I have discussed this question at length, and here will only mention the following:

It is now evident that war is an invention of the last 6300 years only and that previously there was a period of many millennia of peace.
The war-torn period of human existence has occurred in parallel with an imbalance in the mode of relationship between men and women; it has been a period of male dominance and suppression of women, sometimes vigorously overt and cruel, but always some degree of suppression.
The essential differences between male and female approaches to things, or styles, (or principles) have been described by several authors¹¹.
The re-emergence of a balance is taking place to some degree in western countries and elsewhere, but it is not general enough or rapid enough yet to give the human race much chance of averting calamity in the next century. Such balance is still altogether lacking in the world’s highest councils, all of which are currently operating in the male-dominator mode, except possibly the office of the Secretary-general of the United Nations.
The abolition of war will not be achieved without restoration of the aforesaid balance.
One method of improving the balance, or a step toward it, would be the equal representation of women in the highest councils of the world, including parliaments; in fact, parliaments would be a good place to start such implementation.

I therefore postulate as a general principle that it is absolutely necessary to restore the balance between male and female influences (or styles or modes of approach) and to develop governance and human living that maintains such balance.

If we could achieve this a huge number of benefits would appear in time, too numerous to list here. Various gross practices would also recede from human view. Their grossness is itself a symptom of the present imbalance.

My last remaining time and space is reserved for another wide area of human concern: fiscal and monetary policy, on which there is another paper to be presented at this conference¹². We live in a rapacious era in which the rich are still getting richer while the poor become still poorer all over the world and, in rich countries, a new social class of poor is being systematically created. Nowhere has the latter phenomenon been more obvious than in Ontario.

It is furthermore well known that in many countries poverty could in principle be eliminated, while in the poorest countries things do not need to be as bad as they are.

What therefore is wrong with human economic practices on a large scale? What principles should we adopt to guide the world away from the most obscene deviances of the last eighteen years in order to restore hope where currently there is none and life where it is ebbing away?

As I read more, and discuss such matters with yet more economists, it slowly became obvious that it is necessary for us — that is, those of us with a scientific bent — to think for ourselves.

Fortunately several authors have gone into print these last years with explanations of monetary policy which make it clear why there has not been enough prosperity to go round. So I decided to give a physicist’s illustration of the processes of money creation in this day and age, to make the matter even clearer. I begin with model I , the dream of the chartered banks and the investors. These people want money to be treated as a conserved quantity, which makes it specially precious. This does not mean that the amount of money in circulation is constant, but rather that the money supply is equal to the debt. This is illustrated in fig. 1 , which is a precise analogue of electrical charge conservancy in the relativistic Dirac theory of 1928.

Fig. 1. Money, shown as positive, balanced by debt shown as negative.

Any society that started up a monetary system using chartered banks as the only source of new money would conform to the essence of this diagram. The mathematical logic of it that the total money supply = the total debt, at all times.

Given the character of private banks, interest on loans would always, be whatever the market can stand, and the economic system would be** such as to maximize bankruptcies. This is because, on modell, there is no unencumbered money. You can be thrifty, hardworking and save all your life, but your savings are offset by someone else’s debt. During the last few years the Canadian monetary reality has been moving toward model 1, and the bankruptcies have been increasing.

An alternative model, which is in strong disfavour nowadays, is the analogue of a scientist’s hydrodynamic model (fig.2). In hydrodymanics we have sources and sinks, that is, places where the fluid (here, money) appears and disappears.

Fig.2 Hydrodynamic model of money creation and reabsorption.

In fig. 2 the money would be created by a federal reserve bank, sometimes at zero interest for special purposes. To counter possible inflationary effects, or devaluation of the currency, there is a reabsorption process, usually taxes. An argument used by economists is that model 2 also represents conservaton of the total money supply + debt (the debt being counted as negative) because, implicit in the process illustrated is the debt owed by the issuing agency (the government) to its own bank.

It is, however, important to recognize that this is a matter of bookkeeping, not really of debt. But to avoid haggling over such details, I propose to inject into this discussion the concept of “debt burden”. In model 1 all of the debt is a burden to the borrower. In model 2 there is no debt burden.

Thus it is vital to recognize that in economic affairs the money supply need not be offset by an equal debt burden. In fact, if it is, then the conditions for maximizing bankruptcies are fulfilled. A wisely run economy combines both models judiciously, so as to maximize prosperity without reaping any of the possible disadvantages.

With regard to international loans to poor countries, all of these have been such as to maximize the debt burden, and thus they were bound to inflict the maximum penalty on the borrower. This would not have been so tragic had certain other factors not also been present: the necessity to repay loans in US dollars, the losses of export earnings through collapse of export prices, and the structural adjustments that were grossly unfair and inappropriate.

Given all these factors, it is not difficult to come up with some new principles for lending, though they will need testing:

All loans, especially loans to poor people or poor countries, must be made on terms that make the loans repayable in principle, or at least serviceable without unacceptable social cost. If this implies that all international loans of any size must be made by national banks, so be it.
Nobody and no country should have to repay a loan or pay interest on a loan in a currency that may turn out to be unaffordable to them. To cater for drastic changes in the relative value of currencies in international loans, a formula should be worked out that takes into account an appropriate cost of living index in the borrower country and a possible export index for the borrower.
It must not be the business of any lending agency to determine or attempt to determine social policy in a borrower country. Such interference violates the Princple of Life.

In conclusion, I return to Richard Douthwaite’s three principles for a no-growth world. The third of these is: “not everything is for sale”.

Afterword

Collaboration would be welcomed on any of the matters raised in preliminary ways in these few pages and other matters not yet raised. In particular the economic questions, the malthusian question, the dilemma posed by climate change, declining agriculture and the matter of eliminating war and arms trade eventually to zero – are vital.

Notes

¹ “Peace Research” in the Proceedings of the 37th Internatonal Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, Gmunden, 1987, p.397. ^

² “Physics and Philosophy”, Physics in Canada, July/August 1996, p.163. ^

³ Private communication, acknowledged in², above. ^

⁴ “Climate Change and World Order”, in the Proceedings of the World Order Conference, Ryerson university, June 1997. ^

⁵ Loc. cit. ^

⁶ Richard Douthwaite, “The Growth Illusion” (Council Oak Books, 1993, originally published in Britain by Green Books, 1992) pp. 172-3. What Douthwaite calls the “Declaration on the Human Environment is merely shortened to “Stockholm Declaration (1972)” in the UNEP papers; it appears as the first of twelve documents under the broad category “Environmental Law/Guidelines and Principles. “ ^

⁷ Richard Douthwaite, loc cit., pp.301. ^

⁸ Bill Rees and Wackernagel, “Our Ecological Footprint”. ^

⁹ See, for example, the papers by Babu, Holden, and others. ^

¹⁰ “Democratic Governance: the Need for Equal Representation of Women” , in “Progress in Quality of Life Studies” (Kluwer Publishing, in press). ^

¹¹ Merlin Stone, Introducton to “The Goddess Reawakening” ed Shirley Nicholson (Theosophical Publishing House, 1989); Riane Eisler, “The Chalice and the Blade” (Harper and Rowe, 1987). ^

¹² Paul Hellyer, “Reclaiming Democracy: The People of the World vs. its Financial Institution. “ ^

ANNEX

United Nations Environment Program

The Declaration on the Human Environment (1972)

PRINCIPLES

Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial and other forms of oppression and foreign domination stand condemned and must be eliminated.
The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.
The capacity of the earth to produce vital renewable resources must be maintained and, wherever practicable, restored or improved.
Man has a special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife and its habitat, which are now gravely imperilled by a combination of adverse factors. Nature conservation, including wildlife, must therefore receive importance in planning for economic development.
The non-renewable resources of the earth must be employed in such a way as to guard against the danger of their future exhaustion and to ensure that benefits from such employment are shared by all mankind.
The discharge of toxic substances or of other substances and the release of heat, in such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems. The just struggle of the peoples of all countries against pollution should be supported.
States shall take all possible steps to prevent pollution of the seas by substances that are liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.
Economic and social development is essential for ensuring a favourable living and working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for the improvement of the quality of life.
Environmental deficiencies generated by the conditions of under-development and natural disasters pose grave problems and can best be remedied by accelerated development through the transfer of substantial quantities of financial and technological assistance as a supplement to the domestic effort of the developing countries and such time assistance as may be required.
For the developing countries, stability of prices and adequate earnings for primary commodities and raw materials are essential to environmental management since economic factors as well as ecological processes must be taken into account.
The environmental policies of all States should enhance and not adversely affect the present or future development potential of developing countries, nor should they hamper the attainment of better living conditions for all, and appropriate steps should be taken by States and international organizations with a view to reaching agreement on meeting the possible national and international economic consequences resulting from the application of environmental measures.
Resources should be made available to preserve and improve the environment, taking into account the circumstances and particular requirements of developing countries and any costs which may emanate from their incorporating environmental safeguards into their development planning and the need for making available to them, upon their request, additional international technical and fmancial assistance for this purpose.
In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and thus to improve the environment, States should adopt an integrated and co-ordinated approach to their development planning so as to ensure that development is compatible with the need to protect and improve environment for the benefit of their population.
Rational planning constitutes an essential tool for reconciling any conflict between the needs of development and the need to protect and improve the environment.
Planning must be applied to human settlements and urbanization with a view to avoiding adverse effects on the environment and obtaining maximum social, economic and environmental benefits for all. In this respect, projects which are designed for colonialist and racist domination must be abandoned.
Demographic policies which are without prejudice to basic human rights and which are deemed appropriate by Governments concerned should be applied in those regions where the rate of population growth or excessive population concentrations are likely to have adverse effects on the environment of the human environment and impede development.
Appropriate national institutions must be entrusted with the task of planning, managing or controlling the environmental resources of States with a view to enhancing environmental quality.
Science and technology, as part of their contribution to economic and social development, must be applied to the identification, avoidance and control of environmental risks and the solution of environmental problems and for the common good of mankind.
Education in environmental matters, for the younger generation as well as adults, giving due consideration to the underprivileged, is essential in order to broaden the basis for an enlightened opinion and responsible conduct by individuals, enterprises and communities in protecting and improving the environment in its full human dimension. It is also essential that mass media of communications avoid contributing to the deterioration of the environment, but, on the contrary, disseminate information of an educational nature on the need to protect and improve the environment in order to enable man to develop in every respect.
Scientific research and development in the context of environmental problems, both national and multi-national, must be promoted in all countries, especially the developing countries. In this connection, the free flow of up-to-date scientific information and transfer of experience must be supported and assisted, to facilitate the solution of environmental problems; environmental technologies should be made available to developing countries on terms which would encourage their wide dissemination without constituting an economic burden on the developing countries.
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
States shall co-operate to develop further the international law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage caused by activities within the jurisdiction or control of such States to areas beyond their jurisdiction.
Without prejudice to such criteria as may be agreed upon by the international community, or to standards which will have to be determined nationally, it will be essential in all cases to consider the systems of values prevailing in each country, and the extent of the applicability of standards which are valid for the most advanced countries but which may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries.
International matters concerning the protection and improvement of the environment should be handled in a co-operative spirit by all countries, big and small, on an equal footing. Co-operation through multilateral or bilateral arrangements or other appropriate means is essential to effectively control, prevent, reduce and eliminate adverse environmental effects resulting from activities conducted in all spheres, in such a way that due account is taken of the sovereignty and interests of all States.
States shall ensure that international organizations playa co-ordinated, efficient and dynamic role for the protection and improvement of the environment.
Man and his environment must be spared the effects of nuclear weapons and all other means of mass destruction. States must strive to reach prompt agreement, in the relevant international organs, on the elimination and complete destruction of such weapons.

[ Global issues | Sustainability ]