Democracy's flaws: There are no Good Guys: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 4

Abstract

That is, there are no 'Good Guys' as any class, faction, faith, ideology, nation etc.

Introduction

It may be very difficult to build popular support for a movement or party without flattering at least one set of people. And to create contrast, the flipside is often demonising, patronising or ignoring Others.

There are no 'Good Guys'

Valorisation and Heroisation

Political parties, movements, factions, religions, activist groups are typically (and perhaps nearly always) partisan in character.

Nationalists spin myths of their compatriots' glorious past. Right-wing populists imagine their 'pure people'. Religions for the divinely chosen, favoured or rewarded. Class war activists proclaim the virtues of the working class, or on the other side the ruling class. Erotic alliances paint their membership in pretty colours or whitewash. New subcultures emerge with their own positive spins, grievances, othering and supremacy cults. Old established cultures like European imperialists perform primitive ancestor worship, whether direct descendants or not, and their racism reverberates around the world.

Such classes are thus valorised: bigged-up as a group, leading to well-known in-group and out-group tendencies. Mythical pasts are favoured over accurate histories. And individuals from these groups are selected for heroisation: hagiographies rather than warts-and-all portraits. Narratives about victims, martyrs, convenient villains, glorious struggles, national or endemic characteristics are created and pushed.

The Biocratic Alternative

The point of good examples is to abstract from, not idolize.

Biocracy rejects theist and humanist hierarchies in Nature. Humans have learnt to live poisonously on Earth. Therefore humans should learn from other lifeforms how to govern better. These lessons learnt, humans can contribute positively to living planet self-government.

So other hierarchical categories, such as favoured animal 'good guys', 'vermin', 'weeds' and so much be rethought, rejected. We can still keep distinctions between invasive species and aliens which disrupt and degrade ecosystems, often carried by human agency or carelessness. Unhealthy monocultures are the result of human favoritism too.

The aim of biocratic governance, as we have described elsewhere, is the promotion and maintenance of Health at every level. And this does mean defending humans, other lifeforms, their environment and planetary systems from 'Bad Guys' (without justifying collective punishment). It is reasonable to prioritise defence against ecocide and work down from there.

Conclusion

The democratic partisan is reduced to slandering opponents and defending the indefensible, flattering a powerbase with word-bribes and ego-stroking.

The biocratic planet-defender transcends poisonous partisanship and rejects the idea of 'good guys', favouring clear-sighted self-reflection and universalist sciences wherever these come from, in the service of (planetary) life.

Democracy's flaws: There are no Good Guys: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 4 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Life as a value-generating phenomena

Abstract

Life creates value as living processes unfold.

Introduction

This is not an argument that Life has any intrinsic or sacred value. Instead it is an argument that creating value is a function of life.

Life generates value

Thought Experiment

Imagine a barren world on the other side of the Universe where humans will never set foot. Now imagine that simple life appears here for the first time. It requires food: a new value is applied to some material subset of the world. Other values appear as life develops, evolves, complexity and variation increase. As life, and the behaviour of living organisms emerges, so do values.

Implications

As an organism grows, its range of values are likely to grow (up to a point, maybe), and even change over its lifetime, and through its encounters and experiences. The values of a hunting predator are likely to be characteristically different from that of a grazing herbivore, say; of a social animal compared with a solitary lifeform.

But the point is that value emerges from life, not as a theoretical or imposed perspective, but organically and instrinsically, as a natural process.

Conclusion

Life, itself an emergent phenomena, generates value, as an emergent property or behaviour. These values may be simple or complex, stable or unstable, specific or experiential. One could even define life as a value-generating phenomena, although I suspect this would be a problematic reach. As would claiming only life generates value. But as an observation, I think accurate enough.

The Sea-People’s Citizen Assembly Scenario: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 1

Abstract

A thought experiment to test democracy in a non-human scenario.

Introduction

Popular fiction often depicts sea-people as ruled by monarchs (Disney, Marvel, DC Comics) but suppose that our fictional sea-people have the very best form of democracy you can imagine. This could involve citizen assemblies, mandatable recallable delegates, anything you consider to be best practice.

The Sea-People's Citizen Assembly, diversity champions, hard at work

Now imagine a scenario whereby, perhaps in retaliation to land-people dumping waste in the sea, the global sea-people community democratically decide to dump some of their waste on land. This leads to friction, leads to war, all with ideal democratic processes followed perfectly by our sea-people, leads to annihilation of land-people civilization and many living species by weapons of mass destruction.

If you consider this a bad outcome, from an ideal form of democracy, what is wrong in this scenario? Is the problem the extension of democracy to non-humans, even if they are in many ways very similar to us? Or are there any flaws in democracy you can identify?

The Sea-People’s Citizen Assembly Scenario: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 1 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Constitutionally-encoded Biocracy

An enquiry into what form of government we all need today. It's this one.

Abstract

Perhaps the only sane form of government today is a constitutionally-encoded biocracy. Why? Here are some key features.

Introduction

Our planet Earth faces climate change, environmental degradation and pollution, mass extinctions… I will not dwell on the current and future threats, or the failures of current political-economic-ideological systems in countering them. Biocratic government is not simply a necessary response to emergencies, it is a necessary precaution against future emergencies. Specifically: a formal codified constitutional model of biocracy, where proxies representing the living world have a majority in political decision-making, and the global idea communism of life sciences provide the most objective measure available of the health of ecosystems. That is, biocracy may be necessary for survival, of human society at least.

So, human Parliaments today mostly serve humans, and really only a few of those, and not particularly well, considering. This is pretty messed up, when you think about. Much damage is being done to the non-human world by humans. Therefore, one solution is to add majority-sized blocks of representatives for the non-human world, to make sure better decisions are made. For all of us.

And we need a new word for this combination of human democracy and green authority: call it, biocracy.

—Sleeping Dog, The Lorax Amendment: Retro-fitting Green Authoritarianism to Parliaments

A biocratic world is a healthy world

The argument for biocracy rests upon the proposition that a viable future depends upon adherence to the basic principles derived from the life sciences, as mediated by human values, and tested for their real-life consequences.

A precept of biocracy is the need to understand the factors that make for the survival of peoples, their societies, and their cultures.

A basic bioethical assumption is that, in principle, life is good.

A basic tenet of biocracy is that prospects for human well-being and survival depend upon the validity of popular attitudes toward living nature, especially human nature.

—Lynton K. Caldwell, various quotes from Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences

What follows is a sketch, not a blueprint. An outline of a model derived from principles grounded in nature. A seed, if you like.

Some biocratic principles

If you don't like these, there are others:

• life is a good thing, on the whole
• we must respect the primacy of nonhuman life (that is, human life depends on non-human life, but not vice versa)
• we should preserve the environment for present and future generations (of non-human and human life)
• environment as universal heritage (more of a humanist principle)
• applications of the precautionary principle
• nature must be a subject in law, not an object
• non-regression in legislation, standards, policy and practice: don't make things worse, apply highest levels of environmental protection

Concepts from life sciences

First of all, what are included in 'life sciences'? There are many basic and applied life sciences at different levels of specialism and with different focuses, for example biology, ecology, human medicine, botany and so on (and I would include psychology).

Welcome to the Great Hall, designed to represent the Earth's biosphere. That is, the envelope around our planet that supports life, in the seas, on land, in the air, and so on. Each main building complex represents one of Earth's biomes, such as grasslands, tundra, desert, freshwater and marine, and the various forest types. Our human architects have invited in some of nature's own architects, and you will encounter some of their constructions on our tour.

On display are artworks created by children from around the world, on some part of nature meaningful to them. Those marked thus, represent species now thought to be extinct.

—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide

Far from a clockwork universe, life sciences describe complex, adaptive systems with emergent behaviour (of which life itself is one example), capable of regulating states (as in homeostasis), but also experiencing cycles (like seasons) and phase changes. Understanding these allows humans not merely to survive, but to live a good life.

Good life philosophy

It is reasonable to suppose that a biocratic constitution will make reference to one or more good life philosophies, perhaps Sumak kawsay / Buen vivir, ubuntu, or Eudaimonia. These are about living (ethically) well, not having fun. The most suitable philosophies will contain ecocentric rather than anthropocentric worldviews.

In general, the Constitution will prescribe planetary-realistic ideologies for public policy.

Open government

Transparency is essential in the conduct of biocratic government. There is no need for hidden diplomacy, no channels for lobbyists for vested interests, no belligerence, no empire-building. The fundamental position is idea communism: open science, open technology, and the global digital commons.

Distributed authority

Distributed authority is one of key benefits of constitutionally-encoded biocracy. Instead of authority being centralised and claimed by a human elite (possibly on behalf of supernatural beings), authority can be spread beyond national boundaries, to any human individual or group capable of bearing witness, any method of objectively telling the health of ecosystems, and to non-human life. Who or what can tell us how well we are governing and living? All of the above.

Even anarchist Michael Bakunin recognized the authority of natural laws. Yes, you could say that our biocracy is technically an anarchy because we have eliminated the whole human political ruling class. But yes, we have laws, we have order. And in this order, Nature places above Humans, and Humans above Economy.

Nature is our ultimate authority, the great scorekeeper, as we say.

And when it comes to collective decision-making, it is best we recognise that political decisions come in all sorts and sizes and urgencies, and therefore are best handled in separate ways (some technocratic, some democratic, some biocratic, and so on). The design of our biocratic constitution was somewhat concerned with decision categorisation, delegation, prioritisation, integration, 'single source of truth', logjam avoidance, joined-up governance and so on.

Yes, this means that after the construction of our Constitution we have largely relegated full-scale democracy to a lower division, so to speak, but it still plays a number of important roles.

—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide

Health of ecosystems

Only life sciences have objective methods of determining the health of ecosystems. For example, the ecosystem health of a coral reef might be measured by proxies such as counting manta rays or the percentage of seasonal coral dieback. In a similar fashion, medics may take a human's temperature and count their pulse-rate. There will be some differing opinion, but a great deal of consensus, and questions are likely to be resolved by further research. The point here is rather that biocratic policies and interventions can be tested in the field.

Regenerative economies

You can find a 1.5-minute animated video by Kate Raworth on regenerative economics which gets the point across (and will be the only kind of lawful economy under a constitutionally-encoded biocracy).

In biocracy there is no right to impair health of consumers or degrade public health. It would be logical to nationalise or internationalise life science industries (pharmaceuticals and other medicine related to public health; open-source agriculture etc.)

Rights of Nature (legalism) is not enough…

…but such a framing will be required in our Biocratic Constitution. The concentric circles of the Rights of Nature Model indicates the hierarchy Nature above People above Economy. Current environmental law is dysfunctional, ecologically illiterate and unstrategic.

This necessary step will involve the legal recognition of the Rights of Nature on all levels and a shift from a purely anthropocentric worldview to a more ecocentric worldview that sees humanity as one species within a radically interconnected web of life, where the wellbeing of each part is dependent on the wellbeing of the Earth system as a whole.

—Michele Carducci, Silvia Bagni, Vincenzo Lorubbio, Elisabetta Musarò (UniSalento-CEDEUAM) Massimiliano Montini, Alessandra Barreca, Costanza Di Francesco Maesa (UniSiena) Mumta Ito, Lindsey Spinks, Paul Powlesland (Nature's Rights), Towards an EU Charter of the Fundamental Rights of Nature

With a constitutional provision, laws inconsistent with biologically-established fact could be struck down (abortion, tobacco).

Over on our right, the central Courts of Justice are trying some ecocide cases today. Ecocide is a class of crimes that legalises any reasonable means of stopping them; in fact, in this jurisdiction, people are obliged to at once, at minimum informing the authorities. Perpetrators and planners of ecocide are automatically outlawed, with all legal protections withdrawn. There are no legal defences or mitigations, as expressly stated in our Constitution.

Lesser environmental crimes are prosecuted on a similar basis in local courts.

—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide

However, much more is needed than a legalist solution of precautionary and reactionary enforcement. A full political system with roles and responsibilities in research, planning, testing, tax-raising powers, diplomatic service, strategists, administration, education, food security, sustainable living standards, conflict resolution and so forth is required.

It would be necessary to establish publically funded institutions to represent the interests of nature and new courts or other institutions with the sufficient knowledge and understanding to adjudicate conflicts between economic development and nature in order to promote the greater good of the whole community.

—Jan Darpö, Can Nature Get It Right? A Study on Rights of Nature in the European Context

Global responsibility

There is a war being conducted against nature, although only one nation has so far declared it.

Old-fashioned political nationalism has become one of the principal obstacles to biological sanity.

—Lynton K. Caldwell, Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences

One elemental responsibility that was hardly mentioned enough in the COVID-19 pandemic was that national borders should be closed to prevent the disease pathogen escaping from each nation (not just entering). Each nation is responsible to all others for global public health, and biocratic constitutions will make this a formal provision, whatever international treaties say, or do not say. We get our core ethics from our biology as a species of social animal, one might say a political animal.

Ongoing research into, and improvement of, human politics

In a rational society, greater effort would be put into scientific study of human nature and environmental relations. This would involve collective self-reflection on human politics (why there are problems of corruption, nepotism, dynasties, power relations) and ongoing research on it.

Human psychology is both the problem and solution. Our power structures elevate psychopaths, the corrupt and the unfit for office; our imperial education system trains and conditions them; our exploitative/extractive economy rewards them; and our humano-centric legal system protects them; our militarism turns them into mass murderers; our established religions absolve them; and our corporate-state poets write hymns of praise to them. We need to apply our knowledge of human psychology and neuroplasticity to grow towards a life-sustaining political system which takes the lead from the non-human natural world, if we are going to survive. I call such a system biocracy, and is the only radical solution that substantially addresses the points of this article that I am aware of.

—Sleeping Dog

Research has shown how children who have had adverse experiences or are detached from nature can show reduced empathy for the natural world, but equally environments where children connect with nature have a wide range of benefits, including a more ecocentric view of politics.

After our biocratic constitution was democratically constructed and chosen, democracy took a step back and down. Now that our democratic processes no longer deal with life and death issues, the popular will was that default voting age should be lowered to enfranchise schoolchildren. Our schools are now nurseries of democracy, and we expect great things as a result. However, some qualifications on democratic participation were considered appropriate; some collective decision processes have higher age restrictions, some require participation in consultation processes, others by local residence, and some are weighted according to other pertinent qualifications.

Yes, we are aware of the many negative historical examples of disenfranchisement, and are confident we will not repeat them out of ignorance. But ask yourselves if sometimes there was too much enfranchisement, of senile people perhaps. That is a question currently under review here, and extensive research has already been done. We do keep all these rules under review, and again I remind you of our belief that not all decisions are the same; perhaps we are simply a bit more honest about that than in other countries?

—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide

Discipline

As Caldwell writes, open democracies are adaptable but undisciplined. We continually face problems with biotechnology and invasive species.

To believe that the international flow of biotechnology is free from political manipulation, commercial self-interest, ethnic suspicion, and religious opposition would be naive.

—Lynton K. Caldwell, Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences

Where Caldwell falls short is in taking this to the logical conclusion and building model of a new form of government from a biocratic ideology, because at the time the world was apparently not ready for such a radical move. Well, if not now, when? We can develop a political system that eliminates the ruling class, and personal riches, and leave people with enough for the good life, particularly with communal and digital wealth. But there will need to be a public acceptance of some green austerity borne by all. Like Epicurus, we might learn to be happy with bread and cheese shared leisurely with friends. But many aspects of life will need to be quickly tailored to fit inside planetary boundaries, and that will require discipline, not indulgence. Luxuries will be small ones, footprint-wise.

Our old system of environmental law was weak, disintegrated, largely incoherent, and had a traditional fixation on private property and suing for personal damages. Someone once likened it to a robot babysitter, faced with a child in its care playing with matches, looking through its set of rules and saying: "Please put them back in the box when you have finished." No wonder our house was on fire!

There were so many problems with militarism, biotechnology and invasive species; with democracy and public behaviour; and yes with science itself which is corruptible, sometimes driven by faulty ideology or ego, sometimes irresponsibly and callously carried out. And sometimes put to criminal uses.

The solution was to make everyone, to some extent, a life scientist. Our lawmakers and court officials, our civil servants and professionals; every child gets a comprehensive education in life sciences. And not just in gardening or animal care or nutrition, vital though these are, but in systems thinking.

Yes, before the Age of Biocracy there were some biocratic provisions in governments, local and national, in constitutions and international treaties, that were precursors to (and often inspired) our fully-encoded biocratic constitution. Some claimed specific cultural inspiration, but really it was the common sense of ordinary people prevailing, and you can only shut out sanity for so long. And the consequences of one good example should not be underestimated. Which is why good examples are so quickly targeted for annihilation by oppressive forces. Oh, is anyone here from…?

—A 21st Century (Common Era) biocracy tour guide

A world governed by autocrats, militarists, undisciplined democrats, extractive capital, theocrats (and other undesirables) is an unhealthy world

Opportunity

The opportunity to set a good example in government comes all too rarely. To found a new kind of government based on constitutionally-encoded biocracy will be an option during the creation of a new state, perhaps from a successful independence movement or a unification. Never before has seizing such an opportunity been so critical to the survival of human and non-human life on our planet Earth.

Conclusion

While acknowledging this:

Science is a human artifact and provides no infallible guide to conduct or policy. It may, however, inform human choices and expose assumptions that lead to folly.

—Lynton K. Caldwell, Biocracy: Public policy and the life sciences

the other political systems we are familiar with, theocratic or humanist, are all much more fallible by design and have proved routinely corruptible and now (with weapons and economies of mass destruction) extremely dangerous. Time and again, we see the pattern in politicians and priests that begins with "What's in it for me?" And this applies to many social movements too, confusing self-interest with public interest. With one notable exception: the environmental movement, which places value in nature, and takes the long view of deep time and the survival and thriving of non-human species, ecosystems, and future generations of humans within our living world.

What is healthy government? Only one with the principles of life sciences and the good life at its heart. Choose life. Choose biocracy, now.

#biocracynow

Constitutionally-encoded Biocracy by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

The Lorax Amendment: Retro-fitting Green Authoritarianism to Parliaments

Abstract

Thoughts on how to give the environment a decisive voice in currently human-dominated Parliamentary systems.

Introduction

This is probably a bad idea. There are probably many better ways of achieving this goal. Implementing this could obstruct better solutions. Nevertheless…

In Dr Seuss' The Lorax, the environment is being chopped up and poisoned by a capitalist entrepreneur to make stuff nobody needs. I advise reading the book, not the rather redundant animated movie. Anyway, up pops a creature calling itself The Lorax, claiming to speak for the trees, and all the other living things that cannot protest at their mistreatment for themselves.

So the question is how can humans give non-humans an effective voice in the decisions humans make that affect all living things on the planet.

Simple Model of a Parliamentary System

Typically, a Parliamentary system has one or two Houses or Chambers where lawmakers debate and make laws and do related stuff. Let us take an example where the Lower House is filled with representatives of the People, and the Upper House is filled with representatives of Interests.

Lower House

Representatives in the Lower House might belong to political parties. Each party might have a more-or-less distinct programme of policies, usually slanted towards one or other groups of humans, or sometimes claim to serve a higher entity like God or The Economy. Even Green or Environmental parties tend to focus a lot on policies for humans, even if they claim to serve The Environment (who never seems to get invited to speak).

Coloured human political party blocks of seats in parliamentary chamber, divided three ways.

Upper House

The Upper House may be filled with similar party-people as the Lower, or just stocked with people who look like the Lorax but spend most of their time sleeping and are a lot less switched on. The Upper House may serve the interests of the Old Money in the country, perhaps landowners left over from feudal times, or church people who are there for reasons nobody can remember; or perhaps serve the interests of New Money, conventionally passed to them in brown envelopes with a traditional nod and wink.

Revised Model of a Parliamentary System with Lorax Amendment

So how do we change such a system to give the living world a decisive voice? I am glad you asked. And I will reverse the order of Houses to keep you awake.

Revised Upper House

Remember those Interests? Well let's make sure they don't outweigh the New Interests we will be adding, by a little judicious downsizing. Our New Interests will represent sections of the Environment, or Biosphere. Here is Atmosphere, here is Oceans, here is Land. Each can be broken into smaller interests, and joint committees can connect them, so there will be Shore Committee for Land and Oceans to talk to each other. Who is doing this talking? Well, just like humans were appointed to serve the previous Interests, our New Interests will need humans, or something better if available, to serve Atmosphere, Oceans, Land and whatever is decided would be a Good Thing To Do. Some countries without a seashore might not have a very big Oceans representation, but it should be there anyway, as we all know how plastics and other things end up in the sea.

Revised Lower House

A House that just represents humans, in this day and age? Not cool! We need representatives to speak for the Tree, the Tree of Life that is. And how much space on this Tree do humans take up? Very little! So squash up humans, here comes the rest of the family.

Three human political parties shunted off and compacted down to make way for a majority of seats representing the non-human living environment

Who Will Speak for the Non-human World?

At the moment, we might as well appoint the people who have already been speaking out for Nature. These people (scientists, conservationists, environmentalists, ethicists and so on) do not necessarily agree, and sometimes have different priorities, but these can all be discussed in Parliament and its committees, and the public can follow and try to steer these debates and deliberations. Some will be expert in planet-sized problems, others will be expert in groups of living organisms, or ecosystems, or international law, and so on.

In the rest of this article, I will call this group of new representatives the Green Authority.

How Will it Work in Practice?

With the Green Authority's built-in majority for planetary care, and effective vetoes on government formation and policy, every decision affecting the environment will have to be passed (OK'd) by its representatives. Maybe the system won't work. But in some ways, the Civil Service already provide a kind of reality check, and this more transparent system might actually work better.

What Problems Might Arise from Fitting or Running Such a System?

There would be problems in acceptance, and in making the cultures of current party politics and planetary care work together. Lobbyists and agents for planet-damaging interests may try to control or sneak into the Green Authority side. The public might be unhappy about not getting a say (not that they do at the moment, really). Maybe politics will become boring, as Parliament starts to make all the obviously good decisions it somehow never managed to make before, amongst the scandals and mudslinging.

Conclusion

So, human Parliaments today mostly serve humans, and really only a few of those, and not particularly well, considering. This is pretty messed up, when you think about. Much damage is being done to the non-human world by humans. Therefore, one solution is to add majority-sized blocks of representatives for the non-human world, to make sure better decisions are made. For all of us.

And we need a new word for this combination of human democracy and green authority: call it, biocracy.

The Lorax Amendment: Retro-fitting Green Authoritarianism to Parliaments by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0