Discover more from Douglass’s Newsletter
Most approaches to climate change are organized around investment, but that raises difficulties, since all investment is aimed at extraction of wealth from people or the environment. The very word itself is curious and, like so many words has a history of meanings currently kept hidden, keeping stuff hidden in your vest.
The alternative. usually identified with Socialism replaces investment costs with bureaucratic costs, sacrificing speed for some kind of presumed warfare distribution of surplus and wages. The history of socialist efforts to get distribution without the evils of bureaucrasy, do not show positive results. The case of Cuba is lost to us because of our national hostility to the Cuban experiments which yielded apparently very positive results in education and health, and maybe even community spirit, is lost to us.
The level of discussion among those who prefer one or the other, seems fairly superficial.
To deal with climate change, we need some kind of coordination across institutions, technologies, and regions and the sensitivity to the impacts on individual lives.
The proposed space of solutions, sometimes called the search for a third attractor, is amazingly undeveloped in a society that is based on problem-solving. Problem-solving, however, in modern societies is aimed around benefits for a few and is pre-figured by the fact that the process of problem-solving is on even before there are any results
Is it possible to free up problem-solving from dominance by bureaucracy or capital?
Investment and problem solving; Siamese twins
What if investment were aimed not at extraction of wealth from people or the environment but at generate (and regeneration) of wealth—and value—and sharing it widely/wisely.