[PEN-L:4875] LONG message on KILLERCORPWORLD

["J. Havelin" <havelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	Am forwarding this from the PUBPOL list.  Hope it's not too long
for this list.  I found it marvelous reading.

	julia
	havelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

******************************************************************
Here is a paper I recently completed on this very subject.  I would
appreciate comments:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

            CAPITALISM     Against      DEMOCRACY
      (one-dollar-one-vote)       (one-person-one-vote)

                  PART ONE: THE DESCRIPTION
                  by Jay Hanson--April 1995

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It is not from the benevolence | "The aim of every political
 of the butcher, the brewer, or |  constitution is, or ought to be,
 the baker, that we expect our  |  first to obtain for rulers men who
 dinner, but from their regard  |  possess most wisdom to discern,
 or their own self-interest.    |  and most virtue to pursue, the
 We address ourselves not to    |  common good of the society; and in
 their humanity but to their    |  the next place, to take the most
 self-love, and never talk to   |  effectual precautions for keeping
 them of our own necessities,   |  them virtuous whilst they continue
 but of their advantages."      |  to hold their public trust."
                                |
    Wealth of Nations           |      Federalist # 57
    Adam Smith (1776)           |      James Madison (1787)
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      (Madison is known as the father of our Constitution.)

"I consider our relations with others as constituting the
 bounds of morality. . . .  To ourselves, in strict language,
 we can owe no duties . . .  Self-love, therefore, is no part
 of morality.  Indeed it is exactly its counterpart.  It is the
 sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly . . .
 in violation of our moral duties to others."
        The Basis of Rules of Morality--Thomas Jefferson (1814)

////////
FORWARD
\\\\\\\\
American democracy was designed for altruistic leadership.
Jefferson and Madison knew that altruism would be essential to
conduct the only legitimate activity of our government: to
discern and pursue the Common Good.  It follows that our
government is ignorant when it does not know the Common Good,
and corrupt when it knowingly acts against the Common Good.
Boy, have we got a problem in our political system!

Solving our problem cannot begin until there is an adequate
description of the problem.  Moreover, a comprehensive
description of a problem usually suggests its own solution.

This paper describes how our economic system has corrupted our
political system by working to eliminate altruism from our
society.  This in turn has caused our political system to become
nothing but a puppet for our economic system.  In other words,
we do not have a genuine political system, only a
pseudo-political system that is manipulated by our economic
system.  Nevertheless, my work is not just another
"end-of-world" scenario--it is a work of hope and optimism.  I
envision two parts;  this, the first, is a "descriptive" paper.
Later (hopefully within the year) a "prescriptive" paper.

///////////////
SYSTEM DEFINED
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Interacting, interrelated, or interdependent parts combine to
form a "system." A system exhibits emergent "properties" that
are different from the properties of the individual parts.
Alone, the individual parts of a bicycle do not exhibit the
property of a bicycle (people transporter).  The property of a
bicycle emerges once the parts are in their proper places and
interacting together.

To solve a problem in a system, one must analyze the
relationships of the parts to each other and to the environment.
For example, if the spark plugs were removed from a car's engine
and put in the back seat, an inventory of the parts would show
the car intact.  To understand why the car's properties had
changed, one would have to study the relationship of the spark
plugs to the rest of the engine.

It is important to understand that system properties derive from
the ongoing interaction of the parts.  If a system is producing
unwanted effects, then we consider improving the system so that
it stops producing those unwanted effects.  For example, should
we "treat the symptoms" of an unmoving car by attaching a horse,
or should we improve the system by putting the spark plugs back
into the engine?  This example is not as silly as it seems,
because we usually treat symptoms rather than improve
systems--it's the way our economic system works.

For example, some unwanted effects of the "booze" industry are
alcoholics.  Rather than trying to improve the system (e.g., by
banning booze advertising), we treat the symptoms by creating a
new industry to treat alcoholism.  If the pesticide or tobacco
industry causes cancer, then so much the better for those in the
cancer industry.  The same illustrations also apply to many
other social and environmental problems.

Obviously, if our economic system is producing unwanted effects,
we should improve it so it stops producing those unwanted
effects.  We know it can be done because lobbyists "improve" our
economic system all the time.

/////////////////
FEEDBACK DEFINED
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
A system can process "feedback" to maintain stability.  I use
"negative feedback" to refer to feedback that stabilizes systems
and "positive feedback" to refer to feedback that destabilizes
systems.  For example, a car can be said to maintain directional
stability (stay on a straight course) by responding to negative
feedback received through the steering wheel.

The car's environment-thermostat-heater system is also
stabilized with negative feedback.  Temperature information is
sent by the environment to the thermostat.  Once the temperature
reaches specific set points, the thermostat acts to maintain
stability by sending an "on" or "off" signal to the heater.

This system must be carefully designed to accomplish its
specific "function" (maintain a constant temperature).  What
would happen if the signals from the thermostat to the heater
were inverted?  Nothing--as long as the temperature stayed cool.
But once a gradually rising temperature crossed the thermostat's
set point, the heater would turn on and cause a "runaway"
temperature rise.

This type of system exhibits runaway positive feedback.  In
other words, it selects for its own failure.

//////////////////////////
GRESHAMITE SYSTEM FAILURE
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Systems that select for failure are often called Greshamite
systems after the English financier Sir Thomas Gresham
(1519?--1579).  His name was given to Gresham's Law, the
economic principle that "bad money drives out good." When
depreciated, mutilated, or debased (bad) money circulates
concurrently with money of high value (e.g., silver or gold),
the good money disappears because of hoarding.  As more and more
people notice that good money is being hoarded, more and more
good money is hoarded--runaway positive feedback again.
Ultimately, the monetary system fails.

Many Greshamite systems exist in our society.  For example, a
pesticide kills all but resistant pests.  As this process
continues, increasing percentages of the pests are resistant to
the pesticide.  Runaway positive feedback occurs as pesticide
applications are increased to offset increasing resistance.
Ultimately, the pesticide fails.  This same process occurs with
antibiotics, producing resistant diseases.

Our so-called political system can also be seen as a Greshamite
system.  To understand why, first consider the theoretical
premise of our political system:  a government that is willing
to act for the Common Good.  Next, consider two very different
candidates for public office.  Ms. Honesty believes in the
principle embodied in our Pledge of Allegiance "... liberty and
justice for all." If Honesty is elected, she will treat everyone
fairly and pursue the Common Good.  Mr. Corruption is motivated
to pursue his own private gain.  He has studied the system
carefully and knows that he can gain political power by
rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.

Which of these candidates has the advantage?  Mr. Corruption.
Why?  Because of our dominant ideology of individual
self-interest and what economists call "public goods" (public
goods are available to everyone, e.g., the benefit of honest
government).

Huey is a local developer who has money, employees and
influence.  Philosophically, he is an average, self-interested
individual who was trained by television (and to some extent by
his family and formal education) to maximize his own private
goods.  Public goods were never even mentioned, so Huey has
little incentive to contribute to the provision of public
goods.

Will Huey contribute to Ms. Honesty?  No, why should he?  If she
wins, Huey will receive justice and fairness from her anyway (a
public good).  If she loses, Huey will be punished by Mr.
Corruption for helping her.

Will Huey contribute to Mr. Corruption?  Yes, because Huey has
been promised a private good (e.g., a change of zoning).
Moreover, Huey will not be punished by Ms. Honesty for helping
Corruption.  So Huey helps Corruption.

This Greshamite system tends to elect politicians who are
motivated to maximize their own private gain (obviously, there
are individual exceptions).  Runaway positive feedback occurs as
politicians need more and more money to run for public office.
As this process continues, increasing percentages of politicians
are corrupt.

Bad drives out good and Corruption drives out Honesty.  To what
end?  In the end, we do not have a genuine political system,
only a pseudo-political system.

///////////////////////
TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Garrett Hardin's essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons" (1968), is
a modern classic in environmental literature.  The "commons"
refers to the common resources that are owned by everyone.  The
"tragedy" occurs as the result of everyone being free to
maximize one's own profit by exploiting the commons.

Hardin's essay goes something like this:  Visualize a pasture as
a system that is open to everyone.  The carrying capacity of
this pasture is 10 animals.  Ten herdsmen are each grazing an
animal to fatten up for market.  In other words, all the grass
that the pasture can produce is now being consumed by the 10
animals.

Dewey (one of the herdsmen) will add one more animal to the
pasture if he can make a profit.  He subtracts the original cost
of the new animal from the expected sales price of the fattened
animal and then considers the cost of the food.  Adding one more
animal will mean less food for each of the present animals, but
since Dewey only has only 1/10 of the herd, he has to pay only
1/10 of the cost.  Dewey decides to add an animal and take a
profit while the other herdsmen suffer losses.  These losses are
known as "externalities." There is no "technological" solution
to this problem.  Theoretically, "political" solutions are
possible, but with no genuine political system, there are no
genuine solutions.

Shrinking profit margins force the other herdsmen either to go
out of business or add more animals (more runaway positive
feedback).  This process continues until overgrazing and erosion
destroy the pasture system.

Although Hardin's essay describes a problem inherent in an
unregulated public pasture, it serves as a metaphor for our
entire society.  Our communities are the commons.  Our schools
are the commons.  Our roads, our air, our water;  we all are
the commons!

Our commons are being polluted by runaway positive feedback in
the economic system.  For example, a century ago CFCs did not
exist.  But once the first company incorporated them into its
products, competition forced other companies to follow.  As more
and more products with CFCs entered the market, more and more
CFCs were designed into new products.  These chemicals are now
widely used in air conditioners, refrigerators, solvents,
plastic packaging, and foam insulation.

NASA researchers have found conclusive evidence showing that
CFCs are the cause of the Antarctic ozone hole.  The Earth has
lost about three percent of its protective stratospheric ozone,
resulting in a six percent rise in ultraviolet radiation.
Another three percent loss is expected by 2000.  Even with a
complete phase-out of CFCs, the ozone layer is not expected to
return to pre-CFC manufacturing levels until 2060.  Worldwide, a
billion (a thousand million) skin cancers are expected to result
from ozone loss--including 17 million deaths (RHWN, #380).

A billion skin cancers?  Better get used to it, because this is
what happens when we wipe out chunks of our life support
system--and we are picking up the pace.

////////////////////////////
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM DEFINED
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
We are all completely dependent on the environmental services
that are provided by Mother Earth's complex life support system.
Scientists cannot even identify all the variables, much less
measure them.  Developers often call what they do
"improvements," but this is actually a euphemism for
"intervention." Interventions in our life support system are, in
principle, irreversible and unpredictable (Gleick, 1987).
Moreover, these interventions nearly always decrease the Earth's
"carrying capacity."

I define carrying capacity as the maximum load that can be
exerted on a life support system without damaging the system
itself.  Like hungry men eating their own hands, populations
exceeding carrying capacity devour their ability to feed
themselves.  Ultimately, high mortality rates (negative
feedback) return the population to a now-decreased carrying
capacity.

The Kaibab Plateau (north of the Grand Canyon) was originally
capable of sustaining as many as 40,000 deer.  Wolves, cougars,
and coyotes provided the negative feedback necessary to preserve
the deer's life support system (limiting the deer population to
less than the plateau's carrying capacity).

When bounties encouraged hunters to kill the deer's natural
predators (kill the negative feedback), the number of deer
mushroomed from a few thousand to at least 50,000.  Once the
carrying capacity of the plateau was exceeded, the deer had no
recourse but to consume the life support system itself.  They
eventually scoured the landscape for every edible scrap, even
eating the bark of the trees.  The carrying capacity of the
Kaibab Plateau plunged to 10,000 as four out of five deer
starved to death.

The story of the Kaibab Plateau deer illustrates carrying
capacity in its starkest, biologically simplest form:  A certain
number of animals acting in a certain way can be sustained by
the resources in a given region.  Anything over that number
consumes the life support system itself and decreases the
carrying capacity.

There is now scientific consensus that the human herd is already
beyond carrying capacity (Ekins, 1994).  By definition, a
biological species beyond carrying capacity cannot be
sustained--it will be cropped and truncated--one way or another.
Indeed, there is good evidence that we may have less than 35
years until the "functional integrity" of the ecosystem is
destroyed (Rees and Wackernagel, 1994).

Yet we rush to consume more and more of our life support system
for more and more trivialities and distractions.  Economic
theory assumes that wants are infinite, and attempts to supply
them from a finite world.  Since this activity is destined to
crash, perhaps it is time to ask what humans actually "need."

Natural needs are the same in all human beings, for they are
inherent in human nature.  Material needs include such basics as
air, food, water, shelter, sleep, and physical security.  Our
social needs include such things as liberty, true economic
security (not just jobs), love, affection, acceptance, esteem by
others, and self-esteem.  Moral needs include service,
meaningfulness, aesthetics, perfection, truth, and justice
(Ekins and Max-Neef, 1992).  A good education, a sense of
community, and a dependable job are examples of needs.

It's clear that Mother Earth can not be all things to all
people.  We have to decide "what," and to "whom."

//////////////////////////////////
THOUGHT-STOPPING POLITICAL MANTRA
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
When confronted with the inevitability of life support system
collapse, those who feel threatened will invariably retreat to
the thought-stopping political mantra:  "private property." It
is thought-stopping because it diverts attention away from the
issue of collapse and directs attention to politics.

"Private property" (actually a code phrase for "I do not want to
talk about it!") is a culturally-correct form of denial.
Culture can be seen as a shared conspiracy against
self-knowledge and psychological growth in which we collude
together to protect our defenses and illusions.  But one fact
can not be denied:  We all share a common life support system
which must remain intact to fulfill its function (keep us
alive).  Once this obvious fact is accepted, it becomes equally
obvious that property cannot actually be "private" at all.

Suppose Louie bought a forest for one million dollars.  It's
labeled private property, but all living creatures rely on the
life support services provided by forests (e.g., habitat,
watershed, fisheries in rivers, climate stabilization,
recreation).  Harvesting and replanting the forest (in a way
that does not consume the life support system itself) will yield
a 4% return on capital ($40,000 per year).

Now suppose Louie could clear-cut and sell all the trees for one
million dollars, then invest the proceeds in a bank at 5%
($50,000 per year).  NO MORE FOREST!  Indeed, "clear-cutting for
profit" happens all day long, every day of the year, all over
the world.  In the last decade, 154 million hectares of
forest--an area three times the size of France--have been
converted to other uses (WRI, 1994-95, p. 131).

These private properties were part of our life support system
before they became cash.  Property can not be private if we need
it for life!

/////////////////////
WE CAN NEVER GO BACK
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Could we bring back the prosperity of the 50's and 60's if we
could straighten out our social systems?  NO!  We prospered by
depleting high-quality deposits of nonrenewable resources and
degrading high-quality renewable resources.  The "laws of
thermodynamics" are quite clear on what we can and cannot do.

The first law of thermodynamics (the conservation law) says that
there can be no creation or destruction of matter-energy.  The
second law gives a precise definition of a property called
"entropy," which is a measure of disorder in a system.

The idea that we can never go back requires some explanation.
Consider the Earth as an hour glass.  It is a closed system in
that nothing enters the glass and nothing leaves (except solar
energy).  The amount of sand in the glass is constant--no sand
is created or destroyed within the hour glass.  Although the
quantity of sand in the hour glass is constant, its qualitative
distribution is constantly changing as the top chamber (low
entropy) is falling into the bottom chamber (high entropy).
Sand in the top chamber is capable of doing work by falling
(like water at the top of a waterfall).  Sand in the bottom
chamber has spent its capacity to do work.  The hour glass
cannot be turned upside down (waste energy cannot be recycled,
except by spending more energy to recycle than would be
reclaimed in the amount recycled).

The loss of sand in the top chamber of the hour glass represents
the loss of nonrenewable energy resources.  The rising sand in
the bottom chamber represents rising externality losses (as in
the commons tragedy).

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is how we measure our economic
"success." An increase in the GDP actually means the
satisfaction of more and more trivial wants, while creating more
and more powerful externalities that in turn destroy both our
life support and social systems.  When society spends even more
money to defend itself against these unwanted externalities, the
GDP increases even more (positive feedback again).  For example,
the costs of treatment of cigarette-induced cancer,
pollution-induced emphysema, and television-induced crime are
added to the GDP.  There is strong evidence that the U.S.
economy is making us poorer by increasing costs faster than it
increases benefits (Daly and Cobb, 1989, appendix).

Poverty intensifies with each rise and fall of the horsehead
(the moving part of an oil well), each new spasm of industrial
pollution--and each new crop of garbage.  The fragility of our
economic system comes as a surprise to most people.  After all,
there were no news stories regarding inevitable poverty.
Average U.S. citizens are struggling so hard to make ends meet
that they do not notice the resource depletion and pollution
that occurs with each dollar of economic activity.

Who will pay for a billion skin cancers?

////////////////////////////////////
IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAVE OURSELVES?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The fundamental flaw in our social systems is runaway positive
feedback.  If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the
following graphic view of our society should help us to
understand these interlocking social systems.  As you can see,
my view is nearly the inverse of what we have been led to
believe.  If I am right, our so-called political system cannot
save us from the coming collapse.

  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with
  the truth of things.  If language be not in accordance with
  the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
                                                      Confucius
 __________________
| BOTTOMLINEWORLD* \
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |_________________________________________
| America's codified ideology determines the workings of the \
|  entire macro system (at a highly aggregate level).        \|
 \ The laws, trade agreements, economics and mathematics of  \|
 | the "Bottom Line" control the corporations (CORPWORLD).   \|
 |   ___________                                             \|
 |  | CORPWORLD \                                            \|
 |  | ^^^^^^^^^ |________________________________________    \|
 |  | Corporations must act to enhance the Bottom Line.  \   \|
 |  |  If they act against the Bottom Line, they are     \|  \|
 |   \ ejected from CORPWORLD by bankruptcy.             \|  \|
 |   | Corporations control the media.                   \|  \|
 |   |   ____________                                    \|  \|
 |   |  | MEDIAWORLD \                                   \|  \|
 |   |  | ^^^^^^^^^^  |______________________________    \|  \|
 |   |  | Media are hired by corporations to preach  \   \|  \|
 |   |  |  the ideology of the Bottom Line and       \|  \|  \|
 |   |   \ brainwash the "meat machines" (humans     \|  \|  \|
 |   |   | that act like machines in MEATWORLD).     \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   ___________                             \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |  | MEATWORLD \                            \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |  | ^^^^^^^^^  |_______________________    \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |  | The brainwashed meat machines do   \   \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |  |  as they are programmed:  consume  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   \ CORPWORLD's products (consume     \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   | their own life support system)    \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   | and elect "judas machines"        \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   | (POLITICWORLD) to betray them.    \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   ______________                  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |  | POLITICWORLD \                 \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |  | ^^^^^^^^^^^^  |____________    \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |  | Judas machines betray the  \   \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |  |  meat machines by selling  \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   \ the commons to the        \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   | corporations.  If they    \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   | fail to do so, they are   \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   | ejected from POLITICWORLD \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   | by money that manipulates \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   | ballots directly (by      \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   | bribes and payoffs) and   \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   | indirectly (by campaign   \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   | advertising).             \|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |   \===========================\|  \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   |                                   \|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |   \===================================\|  \|  \|  \|
 |   |   |                                           \|  \|  \|
 |   |   \===========================================\|  \|  \|
 |   |                                                   \|  \|
 |   \===================================================\|  \|
 |                                                           \|
 \===========================================================\|

* BOTTOMLINEWORLD is based on "standard economics" which
  asserts: " . that the economy is an isolated system in which
  exchange value circulates between firms and households.
  Nothing enters from the environment, nothing exits to the
  environment. . . . For all practical purposes, an isolated
  system has no environment"  (Daly, 1991, p. xiii)

As you can see there are no formal feedbacks from the life
support system to the economic system because lobbyists have
designed our economic system to benefit their own special
interests.  As a result, once sustainable-yield thresholds are
crossed, economic responses only make matters worse (positive
feedback again).  For example, a scarcity of fish causes fish
prices to rise.  The economic response to rising prices is to
invest more in production--invest in more fishing trawlers to
increase profits.  But this response only hastens the collapse
of the fishery!

Similarly, as falling water tables cause food prices to rise,
the economic response is to plant more crops and spend more on
irrigation.  But where water tables are already falling,
investing in more wells simply accelerates the depletion of the
aquifer and the ultimate decline in irrigation.  Bad system
design is now a matter of life or death.

//////////////////////////////
WHERE IS "HOPE AND OPTIMISM"?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The future looks hopeless.  The Soviet Union provided ample
evidence that even a police state cannot save our life support
system.  Despite strict environmental laws, that country was
completely ravaged.  The lesson:  as long as humans are rewarded
by exploiting the environment and other humans, they will
continue to do so--whatever the political system.

If it is not politically possible to make our disintegrating
social systems viable (by providing the necessary negative
feedback), where does hope lie?  I see only a very slim chance
that humans will be able to avoid social chaos (and possibly
total extinction).

Our hope lies in a "paradigm shift" that is as radical as the
Copernican shift.  For 14 centuries, Ptolemy's astronomical
theory that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth
was taught as religious dogma throughout Western Christendom.

But all that changed when Copernicus caused tremendous
controversies in religion, philosophy, and social theory by
proving mathematically that the Earth moves around the Sun.  It
was heresy on a grand scale.  Ultimately, the Copernican
revolution successfully challenged ancient authority and caused
a paradigm shift in our entire conception of the universe.

//////////////////////////
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Realizing that we do not have a genuine political system is a
paradigm shift in itself and calls for new survival tactics.
Our challenge, in the next three decades, is to survive the
collapse of these non-viable systems while attempting to avoid
the nearly inevitable panic and social chaos (Laszlo, 1994, p.
60; Meadows, et al., 1992, p. 133).

The possibilities for a new society will inevitably increase as
the old macro system disintegrates.  The Soviet Union
disintegrated when it did because Soviet citizens saw a better
model in the West.  I suggest that a parallel macro system be
established with new rules for BOTTOMLINEWORLD.  Chaos and
violence will overwhelm the old system, rising negative
feedback will drive people laterally into the new system and
the present Western system will disintegrate just as the old
Soviet one did.

If a new working model can put together somewhere, it would be
just a matter of time before the lateral migration begins.

I am presently working on part two.  Please send your ideas or
prescriptions for a new society to:  jhanson@xxxxxxxxxxx

///////////
REFERENCES
\\\\\\\\\\\
Daly, 1991:  STEADY STATE ECONOMICS -- Island Press
    800-828-1302, 707-983-6432, Fax 707-983-6164
Daly and Cobb, 1989:  FOR THE COMMON GOOD --
    Beacon Press, Boston;  800-631-8571,  Fax 617-723-3097
Ekins, 1994:  TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT --
    The International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE)
    and Island Press
Ekins and Max-Neef, 1992:  REAL-LIFE ECONOMICS --
    Routledge, NY;  212-244-3336
Gleick, 1987:  CHAOS -- Penguin, NY;  800-332-4624,
    Fax 212-366-2666
Laszlo, 1994:  VISION 2020 -- Gordon and Breach, NY;
    212-206-8900
Meadows, et al., 1992:  BEYOND THE LIMITS -- Chelsea Green
    Publishing Company, Lebanon, NH; 800-639-4099,
    603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576
Rees and Wackernagel, 1994:  INVESTING IN NATURAL CAPITAL --
    ISEE and Island Press
RHWN:  RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS --
    Environmental Research Foundation,  410-263-1584,
    Fax 410-263-8944;  Internet: erf@xxxxxxxxxxx;
    Back issues: anonymous ftp world.std.com/periodicals/rachel
    and via gopher server at world.std.com and at envirolink.org
    and at igc.apc.org.
WRI, 1994-95:  WORLD RESOURCES 1994-1995, NY;
     202-638-6300, Fax 202-638-0036, email: wri@xxxxxxxxxxxx

If you are new to ecology, read this book:
    OVERSHOOT by Catton, 1982 -- University of Illinois Press,
    800-545-4703,   Fax 217-244-8082
To learn out about the coming energy crash, read:
    BEYOND OIL, by Gever, et al., 1991 -- University Press
    of Colorado 303-530-5337

---------------------------------------------------------------
 THIS IS NOT COPYRIGHTED--MAKE LOTS OF COPIES--SPREAD THE WORD

  Jay Hanson, 78-6622 Alii Drive, Kailua-Kona,  HI  96740
        Phone/Fax 808-329-6645  jhanson@xxxxxxxxxxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The real questions are:  What is the name of the political theory
 that allows "artificial people" (corporations) to kill "natural
  people" (your kids) in order to make profit (larger numbers)?
And does this political theory derive its philosophical premise
  from the teachings of our beloved John Locke or Adam Smith?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++