The danger of putting a price on the planet
The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.
I have a simple rule of thumb that if a problem lingers for a while even after many smart folks have tried to solve it, then there’s probably something wrong with the framing of the problem.
We seem to be at that stuck point with the multi-decadal effort to bring economy into balance with ecology – a goal that’s obvious to folks that come from the frame of recognizing that human life will struggle unnecessarily on a planet burdened with degraded air, water and soil resources, and not really on the radar for folks who see economic growth as an unalloyed good that eventually solves all problems.
But the frame is broken at a deeper level. Capitalism is the organizing paradigm of the global economy, which means it organizes much of our thinking by default. Even though we’ve tried to protect nature via carbon markets and other mechanisms, those efforts, while valiant, have inherent flaws. Why? Because it puts a price on that landscape because if a more profitable form of exploitation came around, the same calculations could be used to justify further exploitation.
Such unexamined assumptions are at the core of why our systems are breaking down right now. We’ve turned everything into capital to feed into the capitalistic algorithm.
Defining capital
To set the stage, let’s remember that a simple working definition of capital is “an asset that has been given intentionality.” This is clear when we see how we characterize terms such as “investment capital” versus “operating capital.” The words “investment” and “operating” tell us what the intentionality of the capital is. But we’ve now done this conceptual conversion into capital for nearly everything. So people are now “human capital,” and the natural environment becomes “natural capital.”
It’s worth noting that we’ve already made a deeply consequential decision in adopting this framing. When something becomes capital, it becomes easier to interface with the capitalistic optimization algorithm. Anything that has been characterized as capital can be traded off against other forms of capital.
The capitalistic efficiency algorithm doesn’t have any intrinsic values or aesthetics; it moves relentlessly to places where the numbers look better. That’s why it feels obvious in this economic framing that if AI can be more efficient than human capital, then our aesthetics and values around avoiding mass layoffs and economic chaos will have little sway. The capitalistic algorithm will dominate without active effort to the contrary.
Similarly, even if we value a natural landscape for the value of its natural capital and environmental services, the capitalistic algorithm will absolutely drive the demolishing of that natural system if something of greater economic value can be wrung from the same landscape. In short, one of the important decisions we’ve applied very little direct agency to is the basic decision around which aspects of life we allow to be cast as capital.
Saying no to the algorithm
We can say “no” to this process. We’ve done it before: For example, the sale of human organs is banned worldwide. We decided that the value of the organs that grow inside our bodies is something that should be completely outside any system of capitalist exchange. It’s easy to imagine the horrific chaos that would arise if people’s organs were allowed to be part of capitalist exchange. There are humans valued so little by the economy that their value as exchangeable organs would exceed the value of their economic contribution.
If you think capitalism is incapable of this cruelty, remember that we’ve literally done it in recent world history in the form of chattel slavery. When people and their bodies become property, or body parts become a form of harvestable and exchangeable capital, then don’t be surprised when slaves’ teeth are pulled to replace one’s own lost teeth (a la George Washington). All of this is facilitated when people and their bodies can be owned by others as just another part of their total “capital.” We’ve similarly been enabling the dismembering of the ecosystem function as we de-dimensionalize the natural environment into capital in the flattest sense.
The viewpoint that nature is just another form of capital is at the heart of the climate crisis. The capitalistic efficiency algorithm doesn’t care about the function of natural systems, only what can be done to improve margins and scale production. In prioritizing, our economic endeavors often sever essential connections that then destabilize the metabolisms of natural systems (biology and hydrology).
We’re now living in the collective breakdown of these systems from having lived this “nature as capital” viewpoint for several decades. Many of us have lived in the current system our entire lives so we’re not fully aware of other possible system designs. But there are many other possible viewpoints worth exploring.
Seeing nature differently
Many indigenous cultures around the world are in deep alignment with nature, understanding humans as part of a broader natural system where they hold responsibility to learn from and give to their lands. It’s so widely observed that it’s almost a universal attribute of the longest lasting indigenous cultures — because living on land successfully for hundreds to thousands of years without despoiling it almost always necessitates the deep listening and observation, wisdom-building and care work that we see in so many cultures.
By comparison, in many Western traditions, humans put themselves at the top of a hierarchy of control that helps to justify narratives around the extraction and exploitation of nature. Concepts of “right” hierarchy and “civilized” domination are the go-to narrative justification for exploitation, whether toward natural resources or toward people via hierarchical concepts such as racism, religious superiority and social class superiority.
In the recent Western system, there are always some humans who are allowed to be exploited more than other humans. This creates tension with ideas such as fundamental human rights. At least when systemic exploitation is happening to other humans, they can work to speak up and politically organize. When this domination worldview is applied to animals, plants, lakes, mountains, the atmosphere and minable ores, they can’t push back or speak up the way humans can.
The further assumption that everything “below us” in our conceptual hierarchies can be characterized as capital and exploited opens pathways to creating real damage — whether what we see as “below us” is a factory worker or a pine tree. Sometimes the first time we hear the voice of ecological collapse is when the degradation forces us to leave the area or stops us from being able to safely drink the water.
So what can we do instead? First, don’t fall into the unconscious assumption that everything needs to be capital. Second, we’re at a point in history where we scientifically understand how many natural systems support healthy air, water, soil, biodiversity and people. We can use that knowledge to decide that some subsets of this function are so essential that they’re categorized as our core life support system and shouldn’t be haphazardly exposed to capitalistic exploitation.
While that may sound overly protectionist, the need is obvious if we bring the example closer to home. What if literally every breath your lungs take could be monetized and access to the service could be shut off upon delinquent payment? This business would, of course, have incredible annual return rates and is obviously morally bankrupt. The life support system that the planet provides us is just as essential as breathing, and if we can get to this level of scientific and moral clarity, then we can start putting nature into a framework that will allow us to be here for the long haul.
The post The danger of putting a price on the planet appeared first on Trellis.