A research team at Princeton has statistically verified something we already knew intuitively: that American politics today is controlled by elites and business interests, and average citizens have little or no say in the outcome. There are two names for the type of political system we appear to have -- the broader term "oligarchy" (rule by elites) and the narrower and more controversial term "fascism" (as defined by Mussolini: rule by corporations, or by corporate interest groups.) In the way it actually functions, our political system is not a "democracy" (rule by average citizens, or by public interest groups.)
I suspect we've all already seen the graphs which depict the rapidly increasing social inequity that has gone hand-in-hand with this shift from democratic rule to oligarchy. Another recent study describes a model of human population dynamics, and attempts to tease apart the factors which determine the outcome of civilizations. Many different factors have been invoked to explain specific examples of civilization collapse, but in studying the historic record the research team identified two factors -- resource depletion and social inequity -- that have been prominent across many different civilizations just prior to collapse. Their model incorporates these factors into a simulation of predator-prey dynamics in an attempt to define the "carrying capacity" of a civilization and predict when collapse will occur. In the simulation results (and also in the historical record) either resource depletion or social inequity can independently lead to collapse: both must be addressed in order to create a sustainable society.
Social equity has been part of the sustainability picture all along, but I had always imagined this to be primarily an ethical stance. If we take this study seriously, the obvious conclusion is that it's also a basic requirement for survival. (In the context of predator-prey dynamics, "collapse" means "population collapse".) Which means that it's just as crucial to address our political imbalance of power as it is to address our resource usage, if we want our civilization to survive.
There are at least two obvious explanations for why social inequity might be destabilizing. One is that the elites lose touch with the reality "on the ground" and fail to notice and take action on resource depletion (or other impending crises) until it's too late. That's a relatively benign interpretation of the problem. However, having recently watched the first episode of that Dangerously Alarmist Documentary with this question in mind, I suspect there's another, more dangerous, explanation. When elites lose touch with the circumstances the masses are living under, it creates tensions that destabilize society. Once that happens, even a moderate crisis (which would be easily weathered by a more equitable society) can become a flash point for social unrest and violence. Social equity determines whether people come together in a crisis, or fall apart.
We're currently facing a whole string of global crises, from climate change to peak oil to overpopulation at a level which strains our global food supply. Those crises will inevitably bring loss and hardship in their wake. We can choose to create a society which is resilient -- one whose members take care of each other -- or one which is poised to self-destruct when hard times come.
No comments:
Post a Comment