Author: Eco-cosmopolitan

New book – Power to the People

 

Power to the People - Cover page
Supreme Popular Assembly

Ton Bührs (2026), Power to the People. How New Zealand Can Lead the Way in Transformational Change (Tauranga: Fantail Publications). ISBN 978-0-473-79698-3 (Paperback); ISBN 978-0-473-79696-9 (Epub); ISBN 978-0-473-79697-6 (PDF).

Abstract

Despite its relative geographical isolation and its image as a safe haven, New Zealand is closely interwoven with the rest of the world and subject to many of the same intensifying environmental, economic, socio-cultural, and political problems that affect most other countries. These problems are interacting and converging into what is now referred to as a “polycrisis”, which threatens to overwhelm governments and lead to failed states, including New Zealand.

Governments appear both incapable and unwilling to address this polycrisis. At best, they adopt policies that mitigate symptoms while ignoring the root causes of worsening problems and trends. This book argues that the main reasons for this failure are systemic. The dominant economic system (capitalism), the inherent limitations of liberal democratic political systems, and prevailing socio-cultural systems create formidable obstacles to the transformational change required to address the root causes of the polycrisis.

Although many people think that governments are on the wrong path and that there is a need to radically change course (as reflected, for instance, in talk of a societal reset or rethink during the COVID-19 pandemic), most feel helpless and hopeless about how the future is unfolding. The idea of transformational change seems a lost cause, as the world is stuck on the business-as-usual treadmill.

In this book, I argue that transformational change is still possible, albeit not in the ways it has been pursued so far. Revolution, reformism, grassroots activism, and, more recently, technofascism, have been, or still are, presented as paths towards a better future. Yet, they are all fundamentally flawed and incapable of delivering on their promises. The main reason is that they do not fundamentally alter the distribution of power required to enable societies to choose and steer towards what they deem collectively necessary and desirable. Consequently, the power to make key decisions affecting their future remains in the hands of the most powerful elites, guided by their own interests, ideologies, and rivalries. To enable societies to move towards a future of their own choosing, that power must be put into the hands of the people (“us”).

To many, this may sound like a meaningless cliché. However, if one accepts that formal power (authority) is grounded in the principle of popular sovereignty (not in Gods, monarchs, parliaments or courts), as most even nominally democratic political systems do, then it is the people who should hold ultimate power. We need to look beyond the way this principle has been institutionalised in existing liberal and illiberal democracies. Democracy implies that the people as a whole (“we”) have the right to collectively decide how they are governed or how they govern themselves. This means that democracy is not just, or even foremost, about regularly electing representatives, parties, or presidents, as most democratic theorists seem to assume. It means that the people are formally entitled to change the system of government if they wish to do so and to exercise their supreme power through means of their own choosing.

However, apart from the odd referendum or vote on constitutional change, citizens rarely get the chance to participate actively in developing policies, let alone to debate and reshape the system of government. As a rule, the so-called elites have long considered the public incapable of fulfilling such roles knowledgeably and responsibly. Yet in recent years, a wave of experiments with deliberative democracy has proven them wrong, demonstrating that a more or less randomly selected group of citizens is highly capable of resolving complex and controversial issues. In fact, more so than elected politicians and governments. Research on hundreds of such experiments in dozens of countries has led the OECD (not an organisation known for radicalism) to argue that there is merit in institutionalising and embedding deliberative forms of governance in existing liberal democracies to improve their capacity and policies, strengthen democracy, and rebuild public trust. The organisation even goes as far as to suggest that the “Growing efforts to embed public deliberation into public decision-making could be seen as the start of a period of transformation to adapt the architecture of representative democracy.”[i]

Understandably, the OECD is not in a position to take this view to its logical conclusion. Against the background of the unfolding polycrisis, the failure of states and governments to even recognise the seriousness of the situation, the need for transformational change, and the fundamental right and capability of the people to decide how they wish to govern themselves, the time has come for a fundamental redistribution of political power from current political institutions towards a citizens’ body that is far more truly representative of the people – a Supreme Popular Assembly (SPA). Unlike elected parliaments, upper houses, let alone unelected supreme courts, an SPA can claim to reflect and encompass, “in miniature”, the whole of a society. It can deliberate on behalf of society in its diversity, seeking common ground in shared values and interests, especially in the longer term. Based on the principles of deliberative democracy, it can construct a real social contract in which the people (“we”) specify what they fundamentally agree on. Based on this contract, such a body would then be able to initiate further transformational change in the political, economic, social, and other realms.

New Zealand is in a better position to create a Supreme Popular Assembly than many other countries, largely because of what have traditionally been considered significant flaws in its political system. Once elected, even when based on a coalition of parties, governments have virtually unlimited power. There is no upper house to act as a check on that power, no written constitution that can be used to strike down their decisions as unconstitutional, and hardly any other means to hold them accountable than by “throwing out the lot” every three years. Yet the introduction of MMP (Multi Member Proportional Representation) via referenda has shown that changing the political system is possible and relatively less difficult than in many other countries. There is no reason why a dedicated group of citizens could not do this again by advocating for the establishment of an SPA as a complementary but sovereign political institution.

Therefore, New Zealand can lead the way in transformational change by establishing a Supreme Popular Assembly, thereby reclaiming its reputation as a politically and socially progressive country.

[i] OECD (2020), https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions_339306da-en.html. Paris: OECD.

Copies of the book can be ordered by emailing: fantailpublications@gmail.com. Paperback copies are available $34.99 + postage). EPUB and PDF formats are available for NZ$20.

Bolstering National Capitalism while Sacrificing People and the Earth

The election of populist leaders in many countries marks a new stage of anti-environmentalism aimed at saving capitalism, but it will destroy the Earth.

The re-election of Donald Trump marks a victory for anti-environmentalism. Trump’s announcements and staff appointments openly and blatantly aim at rolling back environmental regulation and weakening the capacity of the US government to tackle environmental problems and threats. Trump is not alone or the first in this quest. Many other political leaders and governments before him and around the world, from US Presidents (Reagan and the Bushes), Brazil’s Bolsonaro, and the right-wing government of New Zealand elected in 2023, to name just a few, have openly stated their commitment to relaxing or removing environmental constraints on economic development. Environmental actions that hinder economic development are increasingly criminalised or labelled as terrorism as they are said to harm the national interest.

What’s behind this? Putting the onus on individuals (populist leaders) or populism is simplistic and misleading. They may be the most vocal anti-environmentalists, but they are part of a broader and deeper movement aimed at destroying the capacity of states to address the environmental challenge effectively. At a time when concerns about global heating are surging, and scientists and environmental advocates are desperately calling for effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, politicians who explicitly reject the need for such action get elected.

One explanation is that other issues have arisen that dominate the political and public agendas. Rising prices and stagnating or falling (real) incomes, growing unemployment, unaffordable housing, food insecurity (dependence on food banks), and declining health care services, among many other social issues, understandably have priority for those affected. Add to that the COVID-19 pandemic, the conflicts and violence affecting millions of people in many parts of the world, the masses of refugees seeking a safe haven or a better life (migration), and ethnic tensions, and it becomes clear why climate change or environmental protection are not front-of-mind issues for many people. This also helps explain why many people vote for populist parties and leaders, as mainstream political parties and governments are often blamed for these problems and for not addressing them sufficiently.

However, most of these issues are interconnected and have arisen due to underlying factors and drivers. The main factors are political-economic. More clearly than ever, neoliberal governments are acting as committees serving the interests of capitalism, in particular, of their national branches. They affirm this openly in almost everything they say and do, even though they substitute the term economy for capitalism. Capitalism and its imperatives (economic growth and investment opportunities—capital accumulation) dominate everything else. Governments are trapped within the national political-economic systems that they serve. Heeding the needs of their national branches of capitalism has priority, even if this requires measures at the expense of their own people and the environment.

In the broader context, neoliberal globalisation enabled capital to flow to where the greatest profits could be generated. For a while, this served the interests of US and European capitalists well. However, with the rise of China and other rapidly industrialising countries, this “rule-based order” came back to bite the United States and many European countries, leading to deindustrialisation, rising socio-economic problems, and demands to protect domestic industries.

On the other hand, this government support benefits billionaires (so-called wealth creators), leading to extreme inequalities. Many politicians and experts serving capitalist interests also profit handsomely by receiving exorbitant salaries and bonuses, often through speculation or corruption. By contrast, despite many years of economic growth, the funding pool for public goods and services has been ever-decreasing.

The rise of China and other newly industrialised economies poses not only a formidable competitive challenge to Western capitalists, but is also defined as a geopolitical and military threat to US hegemony and the West. As China is an authoritarian state, this threat is easily converted into a threat to the freedom and democracy of the West that needs to be contained. “We” (especially the US) need to prepare for war with China and with Russia (especially the EU), which, of course, justifies boosting military spending and creates economic growth and new investment opportunities. If “needed”,  the use of force is justified to protect and advance these “national interests”.

Thus, the dynamics of capitalism have fuelled a politics of economic nationalism, socio-economic austerity, and environmental destruction. This causes social immiseration and polarisation, while privileging national capitalist economic interests.  As long as globalisation served American capital well, notably by opening up investment opportunities worldwide, free trade was the dominant mantra. However, with the weakening of the US’s competitive position and the social and political pressures caused by globalisation, the pendulum has swung back to protectionism. Both Biden and Trump adopted this course, with Biden, especially, by rebuilding essential infrastructure. Trump, by contrast, openly and bluntly privileges the interests of billionaires, including himself and his family. However, for both Biden and Trump, maintaining US hegemony was and is a priority.

The growing emphasis on national development and reindustrialisation does not bode well for the environment. As long as political-economic systems remain in the grip of capitalism, its imperatives will dominate all other interests, including social well-being and environmental protection. Environmental concerns are ignored or labelled “woke”, while keeping wages low and cutting social spending are touted as economic necessities. Thus, people and the Earth are sacrificed to save and bolster national capitalism, even if doing so will also imply the end of capitalism.

 

High Time to Stop the Culture Wars

Culture wars detract people from the crucial environmental and political problems that must be tackled if humanity is to survive.

As the globe is heating, the environment unravels and “natural” disasters have become the new normal, millions of refugees are seeking new homes, the Russia – Ukraine war is dragging on, and Israel is about to revenge atrocities committed by Hamas by “eradicating” many thousands of people, the US is preparing for war with China as well as Russia, ethnic and regional conflicts fester around the world, while many millions suffer from poverty, inequality, homelessness, and preventable diseases, it should be apparent that humanity is not making much progress in coming to terms with its enduring challenges. If anything, people are becoming more divided, politics is becoming increasingly polarised, and governments are drifting rather than steering, as they have no clue how to stem the flood of converging crises hitting societies and the world, let alone what to do to address their sources.

One of the main characteristics of collapsing societies, like people at the end of their tether, is that they continue to do the same thing(s) in the hope that it will solve their problems by some kind of miracle. Governments and businesses continue to promote economic growth as the miracle cure for their and the world’s problems. They keep on exploiting and ruining the environment in the belief that this will generate enough money and motivation to solve environmental problems. They keep on producing new chemical compounds, approving untested technologies, and selling products that are supposed to improve people’s health and well-being, but that cause ill health and addiction. They keep on exploiting people with the promise that this will lift them out of poverty and make them rich. They keep on suppressing freedom, discontent and critique by labelling people criminals or terrorists, locking them up or killing them. And last but not least, they keep entertaining the people to distract them from their misery.

Keep spinning in a rut, but it won’t get you out. These mantras and repetitive behaviours may fool people into believing that governments know what they are doing, but they do not even recognise, let alone address, the enduring problems facing societies and the world. Instead, they dig humanity into deeper and deeper ruts. The problems, discontent, tensions, and conflicts are getting bigger. One of the sad things about humanity is that it seems incapable of learning from its mistakes.

One of the biggest mistakes made by human groups and societies is engaging in culture wars. Culture wars are not just about “wokeness” or transgenderism, although these do add to the divisiveness in many societies. Culture should be seen as a much broader thing. It comprises almost everything people believe, do, and continue to do as group members. Culture gives a group and its members a sense of identity, meaning, and purpose. People acquire culture from the societies in which they grow up, but throughout their lives, they may also be or become members of a variety of sub-cultures, such as a youth culture, a business culture, a professional culture, a gang culture, a regional culture, or an ethnic culture, among many others.

Culture is a thorny matter. Almost by definition, cultures rule people in or out. Originally based on the imperatives of survival in a local or regional biophysical environment, kinship groups developed cultures that served the basic material needs of the group members. They adopted strict rules and norms, allocating distinct roles legitimised on the grounds of necessity, nature, and the spirits or gods thought to rule their world. Those who did not adhere to their culture were regarded as aliens or sub-humans that could be killed or enslaved at will. By contrast, they thought of themselves as the only “real” humans at the centre of the world.

While, over time, the groups and societies in which people lived and on which they depended for their survival increased in size, their propensity to rule people in or out remained. Ethnic divisions, based on culture and perpetuated by histories of conflict, atrocities, exploitation, and discrimination, continue to plague many countries in all parts of the world. While national cultures and nationalism can be regarded as steps towards integrating diverse cultures into newly shared (or forged) cultures, these, too, have been highly divisive and lethal in their applications, both domestically and internationally. If anything, globalisation has provoked a backlash against the idea that national, indigenous, regional and local cultures are no longer important.

However, rather than reviving nationalism, tribalism, and ethnocentrism, humanity must overcome these divisions to address its enormous political, economic, social, and environmental challenges. What is needed, instead, is forging an eco-cosmopolitan culture that emphasises the common values and interests of all humans on this planet. This does not imply the abolition of existing cultures and cultural diversity. Given the basic human need for identity and belonging, the human propensity to categorise people in or out (which may be hard-wired), and the existing socio-cultural reality, cultural divisions are likely to persist. The best we can hope for is that a growing number of people start realising and accepting that humanity urgently needs to forge a common eco-cosmopolitan culture. This may sound idealistic and unrealistic. But reality demands that humanity stop its culture wars. If we acknowledge that cultures are not God-given but have been forged by powerful people, and increasingly so by manipulating them by highly insidious means, we can get a sharper idea of how this can be done.

Population matters

Population size has been a topic of debate since Malthus. But the debate has often focused on a narrow range of issues.

Ever since Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population, population has been a topic of debate. Initially, much of the debate was driven by the fear that population growth would outstrip food production, resulting in widespread starvation and societal collapse. This fear was allayed by the “Green Revolution” in the 1970s, which increased agricultural production enough to feed a rapidly growing world population, from 3 billion in 1960 to 8 billion in 2022. More recently, in several countries, including China, Japan, and many European countries, concern has shifted in the opposite direction, towards declining populations. In particular, this concern focuses on the economic consequences of the “greying” of populations and the shrinking of the working-age groups. Some refer to these developments as posing a demographic crisis. India, which recently has overtaken China as the most populous country with over 1.4 billion people, is said to have its population policy right, while China got it wrong. To address these issues, increasing immigration is often proposed as a solution, a highly controversial topic in many countries. At the same time, the world population is expected to grow to 10.4 billion by the end of the century. Given the existing and aggravating environmental pressures and problems, this raises the question of how many people the Earth can support, especially with expectations of ever-higher consumption levels.

Thus, the “population issue” has shifted in focus, from food production to composition (greying, immigration) and population decline, to over-consumption and environmental pressures (sustainability). However, many of the contributions to the debate take a narrow view, looking at a single aspect and/or driven by a particular economic or political agenda. The debate is often cast as one between pessimism and optimism about the number of humans that countries or the Earth can sustain. Both positions reflect an anthropocentric worldview. Non-human nature is seen as important only inasmuch as it serves human interests. From an ecological perspective, but stated in human terms, it can be argued that humans have become a pest that destroys the conditions essential to the survival of numerous other species. That they do so is not just because there are too many of them. Even smaller societies have often wreaked havoc on their local environment. The heart of the problem lies in the fact that, as a species, humans have detached themselves from and stand apart from, or above, the rest of nature. To prevent humans from destroying the natural fabric on which their survival also depends, they must consciously and collectively integrate environmental imperatives into their thinking, behaviour and institutions.

If they were to do so, societies would maintain their numbers at levels considered environmentally sustainable, both locally and globally. Respecting the existence of all other species, they would restrict their ecological impacts and, within those limits, determine the size of their populations based on what they collectively consider desirable, based on qualitative and quantitative criteria. This is, of course, not how the world works at the moment. Initially, the size of populations is determined by the decisions of individuals or families, which are not easily controlled collectively. Second, how governments interpret or define the population issue and what they do or don’t do about it is foremost a matter of political economy. Whose views prevail collectively and are converted into policies and given effect depends on the distribution and exercise of power within political-economic systems.

A Planetary Tragedy

‘A Planetary Tragedy’ delves into the question why governments have failed to address the environmental challenge effectively.

The print edition of my latest book, A Planetary Tragedy: Why Humanity Fails the Environmental Challenge (November 2022), is available in both PDF format and paperback. Hard copies (NZ$59.95 + postage) can be ordered by email to buhrs2050@gmail.com.

A Planetary Tragedy addresses the question of why, some 50 years after ‘the environment’ became a topic of public concern, efforts to address environmental problems have by and large failed, and the world appears to be headed for a disastrous future. Although governments have adopted a raft of national and international measures to combat environmental issues over the years, most of these have proven inadequate, and the rate of environmental degradation has continued unabated. 

The book critically surveys and analyses the environmental performance of countries, in particular some that have been regarded as ‘environmental leaders’, and identifies and discusses three broad reasons for this failure. First, the way environmental problems have been predominantly interpreted, which largely ignores the deep and interconnected nature of the environmental challenge; second, the failure to recognise, let alone address, the systemic sources and causes of environmental problems; third, the power structures in the prevailing political-economic systems, which make it virtually impossible to fundamentally change those systems and to put societies onto a path towards sustainability.

Covering an extensive body of literature, the book draws on research, theories, findings, and ideas from various fields, including environmental politics and policy, comparative, international, and global analyses and perspectives, environmental sociology and history, economics and the environment, political and social theory, and environmental management. It puts forward a framework that can assist in taking a comprehensive and integrated approach to the environmental challenge, discusses the strengths and7 weaknesses of a range of theoretical perspectives, clarifies key concepts and factors central to better understanding the systemic issues and obstacles lying at the heart of the environmental challenge, and puts forward ideas on how to strategically address the enormous imbalance of power that stands in the way of transformative change. The main suggestion is the establishment of national-level Sovereign People’s Authorities, based on the principle of popular sovereignty, which will enable societies to democratically steer themselves towards a sustainable and desirable future.

The book is essential reading for students and academics in the fields of environmental politics and policy, including comparative, international, and global environmental politics, as well as for those seeking a deeper understanding of why societies have struggled to address the environmental challenge more effectively. While not offering a basis for facile optimism, it identifies what will be needed to prevent the world from sliding further toward the abyss.

About the author

Born in the Netherlands, Ton Bührs graduated with a Drs in Political and Social Sciences from the University of Amsterdam. He moved to New Zealand in 1984 and completed a PhD in Environmental Policy and Politics at the University of Auckland’s Department of Political Studies. In 1991, he joined Lincoln University, where he became an Associate Professor in Environmental Policy and Politics until his retirement in 2014.

Politics in Palaeolithic societies

Research on paleolithic societies suggests that political positions in these societies may have been fluid, linked to the variable needs and functions of the group.

David Graeber, in a “long read” in the Guardian of 19 October 2021, argues that (Upper) Palaeolithic societies (between some 50,000 – 15,000 years ago), may have had seasonal (dual) socio-political structures that alternated between more or less egalitarian during the hunting-gathering season to more hierarchical at times of seasonal festivals when larger numbers of people (of clans, tribes, and other groupings) gathered to celebrate. His argument is based on archaeological evidence of monumental structures that have been found in various parts of the world, but that seemed to have been used only seasonally, as well as of the graves of ‘extreme’ individuals (people with extraordinary features) who were buried with all kinds of ornaments at these sites. He speculates that during the times of these gatherings, these extreme individuals may have acquired some kind of leadership positions, but that these were temporary and functional rather than hereditary. Like the Nambikwara in Brazil (a people studied by Claude Levi-Strauss), leadership positions were seasonal and more egalitarian socio-political structures prevailed at other times. Graeber argues that this suggests that early societies could intentionally alter their political relations and structures. Although there are still some remnants of this conscious reversal of hierarchies in modern societies, the latter seem to be much more stuck with their political structures.

Although speculative, the idea that early societies adopted different political structures at different times of the year has some plausibility. While small groups of hunter-gatherers may have had relatively functional political relationships based on the relative (demonstrated) personal skills of their members, the seasonal gatherings by a large number of groups for collective celebrations and rituals (of all kinds) may well have provided opportunities for individuals to stand out based on some personal qualities (physical, social, intellectual, or other). Arguably, such ‘outstanding’ people gained a special status based on the recognition of their special qualities. However, after these gatherings broke up and the groups dispersed again, the day-to-day needs and practices of the smaller groups may have reasserted themselves in their internal politics, where functional and useful skills were most important for the group’s survival.

The article provides support for the view that politics and political structures need to be understood based on a range of functions that need to be fulfilled at the collective (group, tribe, state) level to ensure the continuity of the group, which requires that basic needs are met. These functions comprise: ensuring the means for the group to provide for its own material needs (the organisation of hunting, gathering etc.; economic function); the management of conflicts within the group (personal rivalries; sexual rivalries; distributional conflicts); social integration (development of norms, symbols, stories, beliefs or other that bind and keep a group together); and enhancing security (notably against threats from outsiders, but also from deviant/aggressive people within the group). Different individuals may have played leadership roles in these functions, which helped maintain a balance of power within groups. Modern states continue to play a crucial role in all four functions.

Social Fragmentation in China

Social cohesion in China is under threat from the dominant materialist culture, which is insufficient to hold society together.

An article in the Guardian of 6 September 2018 (“‘Human Impulses Run Riot’: China’s Shocking Pace of Change”) provides support for the view that, with the (re-) introduction of capitalism in the 1980s, Chinese society has been subject to a process of social fragmentation. Individualism, materialism, and corruption are rampant; the importance of family has declined, and collective political ideals no longer drive people.

The author (Yo Hua) reflects on the political, economic, and social changes since the 1960s, identifying three periods of rapid political change (each associated with three waves of suicides among political officials) and noting that, in present-day China, money is all that counts. Political ideals no longer drive people, family ties have weakened, individualism and corruption are rampant, and inequality has increased. He seems to suggest that no one is really happy. Ordinary workers suffer most from the fierce competition, which is driving wages down. The rich suffer from anxiety, afraid to lose everything they have acquired. Many people are nostalgic. But new technologies (such as mobile payments) have been adopted by most people, and few, he argues, would really want to return to the past. He also notes that present-day protests (“mass incidents”), when they occur, are motivated by self-interest (protection of material interests), not by a desire to transform society, indicating widespread depoliticisation

Although the love of money and materialism are theoretically shared values, they do not necessarily bind communities or societies together. Rather, they feed and fuel competition, jealousy, and perpetual discontent and unhappiness (relative deprivation – pressure to “keep up with the Joneses”, a treadmill of insatiable consumption). Hence, relying on continuous economic growth, even if it were possible, as a means to “keep people happy”, is a fundamentally inadequate and risky strategy for holding societies together (social integration). Large inequalities in wealth and income erode social integration, creating a new class society. Not surprisingly, China’s leadership is attempting to foster pride in China’s rich cultural heritage to maintain social cohesion. However, clamping down on corruption, although it may help somewhat to maintain the regime’s legitimacy, does little for social integration, as it does not address the sources of fragmentation associated with individualism, materialism, exploitation, and inequality.

Pastoral Egalitarianism?

Although prehistoric pastoral societies may have been more egalitarian than agricultural societies, this does not necessarily mean they were democratic.

Research reported in The Guardian provides support for the idea that prehistoric pastoral societies had egalitarian structures. Various other sources have argued before that hierarchical social structures originated with the emergence of agriculture and associated permanent settlements. This led to agricultural surpluses being accumulated and entrusted to and/or controlled by “authorities”. Although the members of agricultural communities may have consented in such arrangements, it does not seem farfetched to claim that those who exerted control over surpluses thereby also built up a position of material power with which they were able to create or strengthen their official positions in their societies, de facto creating states, the emergence of which has also been linked to the rise of agriculture. By contrast, pastoral societies that lived nomadic lives to feed their herds were probably less able to accumulate and store surpluses, providing less opportunity for relatively powerful individuals to increase their material and other forms of power. Nonetheless, we should be careful not to idealise pastoral societies as egalitarian, let alone democratic, communities. There is no a priori reason why relatively powerful individuals or groups of individuals in such societies would not have been able to, for instance, lay ownership claims on more cattle than others, thus also expanding their material power. Moreover, it is quite likely that differences in other power resources (physical, communicative, social) between individuals in pastoral (and any other) societies will have led some to obtain leadership positions (political institutions) that may also have provided a basis for privileges and material inequality to arise. But it is plausible that the potential for the accumulation of wealth (material power) in (city-) states was significantly bigger insofar as the area under production could be expanded (possibly by force), control over increased trade (of surpluses) could be enforced, and income could be generated by control over the labour power and productive efforts of those who were exempted from working in the fields (such as crafts people). In both cases, however, the key to increased inequality lay in the ability of some (relatively more powerful members of a community) to increase control (if not ownership) over material resources, by legitimate or non-legitimate means.

More “Unpleasant Surprises” From Pollution

As long as governments fail to adopt a comprehensive approach to preventing pollution, many more ‘unpleasant surprises’ are likely to pop-up in the future.

Just in the wake of the recent worldwide rise in concern about the pollution effects of plastic products, which now have been discovered world-wide, here is another installment of the many “unpleasant surprises” resulting from the virtually unbridled development and introduction of technologies and products without giving adequate consideration to their potential effects on humans and the environment.

An article in the Guardian of 28 August 2018 (“Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study reveals”) reported on research undertaken in China that has shown that air pollution has a significant effect on human cognitive capacity. “It found that high pollution levels led to significant drops in test scores in language and arithmetic, with the average impact equivalent to having lost a year of the person’s education.” As 95% of the global population breathes unsafe air, this affects most people; however, the effect appears to be worse for the elderly, especially older men.

This is just another example of the numerous instances, starting with Rachel Carson’s revelations about the harmful effects of pesticides, where the development and introduction of new technologies and products have occurred without a rigorous assessment of their compatibility with both ecological systems and human health and well-being. This, of course, may require considerable research, take time, and be costly; things not compatible with short-term economic interests. In a competitive (capitalist) economic system, companies are under pressure to cut costs and corners for the sake of profit, shifting the burden of “unforeseen side-effects” or “externalities” to consumers, societies, and the environment. If anything, since Rachel Carson rang the alarm bells, the stream of new technologies and products that have hardly, if at all, been assessed on the unpleasant side effects of pollution that have been allowed to occur under the assumption that the effects on humans (and the rest of nature) were (‘probably’) not serious enough to worry about.

The approach to pollution control has commonly been reactive and fragmented, with measures taken only after the adverse effects on humans or the rest of nature have become apparent and are considered serious enough, and then usually only aimed at a single source or category. To date, no country has adopted a comprehensive approach aimed at preventing pollution, which would require the establishment of criteria and standards (for both products and production processes) based on the recognition that all products must be compatible with ecological systems and processes, and conducive to human health and well-being. In other words, this latest finding is just another illustration of the fact that environmental integration in the realm of production (in this case, of cars, trucks and buses, but also factories and the products that they make) still has to begin.