I think you might enjoy Derrik Jenson's The Myth of Human Supremacy. The cooperative model of life which runs at odds with Darwin's is a better model to follow, if we are to even have a habitable planet. Looking forward to reading more of your work.
Both of the books I mentioned in the article are excellent and worth a read. I could be wrong, but I don't think those books used the same terms you are using maybe because they are both foresters. The general idea is that clear-cutting and then planting neat little rows of the same type of tree does not lead to what was there before, and the trees simply do not "thrive" under the conditions. So it depends on which entity is directing and managing the replanting.
Funny to be reading this today -- yesterday I caught this feature on tree-planting by refugees in an area formerly depleted of its tree cover (as a result of the sudden arrival of refugees to the area and authorities' failure to provide them cooking fuel). I enjoyed reading the article but couldn't shake the question: is this proper permaculture or just greenwashing? (It seems sincere and probably falls somewhere between the two -- I hope and think on the permaculture side of things.)
Your policy prescriptions, re the economy, are quite good. (However, I am not so sure about your extrapolation from nature. I think aid should be rendered to the poor because such a course of conduct would be morally just and salubrious. However, I am not so sure that there is a natural or innate or genetic compulsion or predilection toward mutual aid.) Of course, the poor are being shafted. I would only wish to stress that in many ways IT IS GETTING WORSE: The average life expectancy for a man in the bottom stanine (ninth, or one ninth of the population) of income is more than 10 years less than the life expectancy of a man in the top stanine of income. Life expectancy for poor Americans has been dropping. More couples are not having children simply because they cannot afford them. And almost all of the programs and policies administered by the so called compassionate "welfare state" are corrupted, bedeviled and perverted by corporatist bourgeois liberal interlopers which seek to hurt the poor and bestow garlands of riches on the affluent.
I completely agree that a basic income is necessary not only for the compelling equity reasons you've covered, but because trends like human longevity and the pace of technology change will force EVERYONE to leave jobs that disappear or morph and retool for whatever new opportunities emerge.
Since few companies have followed his example, I've been thinking that we could change the way "minimum wage" is defined and make it something like the way ERISA handles retirement plans. Pulling numbers completely out of the air (I'm not an economist or MBA), the law could say that the lowest paid worker at a company must be paid at least 10% of the total salary, benefits, perks, and any other form of compensation of the highest paid person. So, CEO, if you want to pay yourself a million dollars, the janitor or fast food counter clerk gets $100,000. Given your stats about CEOs making more than 300 times the average worker in their companies, I suspect the spread could be even flatter.
Congratulations for providing an apt and unique comparison showing the weakness of our capitalist system where the poor stay that way and how a guaranteed income could be the answer.
I think you might enjoy Derrik Jenson's The Myth of Human Supremacy. The cooperative model of life which runs at odds with Darwin's is a better model to follow, if we are to even have a habitable planet. Looking forward to reading more of your work.
Both of the books I mentioned in the article are excellent and worth a read. I could be wrong, but I don't think those books used the same terms you are using maybe because they are both foresters. The general idea is that clear-cutting and then planting neat little rows of the same type of tree does not lead to what was there before, and the trees simply do not "thrive" under the conditions. So it depends on which entity is directing and managing the replanting.
Funny to be reading this today -- yesterday I caught this feature on tree-planting by refugees in an area formerly depleted of its tree cover (as a result of the sudden arrival of refugees to the area and authorities' failure to provide them cooking fuel). I enjoyed reading the article but couldn't shake the question: is this proper permaculture or just greenwashing? (It seems sincere and probably falls somewhere between the two -- I hope and think on the permaculture side of things.)
What say?
https://news.mongabay.com/2022/06/cameroons-nigerian-refugees-who-degraded-their-camp-are-now-vanguards-of-reforestation/
Your policy prescriptions, re the economy, are quite good. (However, I am not so sure about your extrapolation from nature. I think aid should be rendered to the poor because such a course of conduct would be morally just and salubrious. However, I am not so sure that there is a natural or innate or genetic compulsion or predilection toward mutual aid.) Of course, the poor are being shafted. I would only wish to stress that in many ways IT IS GETTING WORSE: The average life expectancy for a man in the bottom stanine (ninth, or one ninth of the population) of income is more than 10 years less than the life expectancy of a man in the top stanine of income. Life expectancy for poor Americans has been dropping. More couples are not having children simply because they cannot afford them. And almost all of the programs and policies administered by the so called compassionate "welfare state" are corrupted, bedeviled and perverted by corporatist bourgeois liberal interlopers which seek to hurt the poor and bestow garlands of riches on the affluent.
I completely agree that a basic income is necessary not only for the compelling equity reasons you've covered, but because trends like human longevity and the pace of technology change will force EVERYONE to leave jobs that disappear or morph and retool for whatever new opportunities emerge.
I've also been noodling another approach inspired by Dan Price's $70,000 minimum wage policy at Gravity Payments: https://www.fastcompany.com/90477926/gravity-payments-is-expanding-its-70000-minimum-wage-from-seattle-to-idaho He also cut his own salary to $70,000, although as I understand it other executives at the company still earn more.
Since few companies have followed his example, I've been thinking that we could change the way "minimum wage" is defined and make it something like the way ERISA handles retirement plans. Pulling numbers completely out of the air (I'm not an economist or MBA), the law could say that the lowest paid worker at a company must be paid at least 10% of the total salary, benefits, perks, and any other form of compensation of the highest paid person. So, CEO, if you want to pay yourself a million dollars, the janitor or fast food counter clerk gets $100,000. Given your stats about CEOs making more than 300 times the average worker in their companies, I suspect the spread could be even flatter.
Great article. I think you would enjoy the book Overstory
Congratulations for providing an apt and unique comparison showing the weakness of our capitalist system where the poor stay that way and how a guaranteed income could be the answer.