Sustainable Communities, Globalization and Increasing Complexity

Joseph Kruth
© 1999

As published in Future’s Research Quarterly, Summer, 1998

Introduction

The greatest changes in recorded history continue to accelerate in scope and intensity, increasing the complexity of human existence. Rapid change magnifies conflicts between the emerging paradigm of interconnectedness based on the science of complexity and the old paradigm of Newtonian reductionism. These conflicts are much more than ideology. They concern alignment with or resistance to the natural laws of the systems in which we live, especially the mandate to evolve. Acknowledging this complexity and embracing the new paradigm now available will provide the foundation and theoretical framework to practically evolve beyond ideologies and arguments based on obsolete methodologies and agendas.

Powerful economic interests, competing with each other for profits, create self organizing systems which oppose the sustainability of communities. Aligned through a commonality of interest, not agreement, these interests seek increasingly favorable climates in which to promote an agenda of profit and control with little regard for the cost to societies. Using outdated economic measures and definitions of "growth," they claim to improve well being when in reality their actions are often detrimental to people and communities.

Who will determine the future of communities? The answer is neither simple nor obvious, but it is understandable by anyone willing to make the effort. We have fundamental choices to make about the future of humanity. This article will explore what they are and what communities can do. It will examine some of the forces at work, and why we normally avoid considering them. It will also propose how a broader segment of society can guide our course into the future.

With my background in business, development, law, investments and finance, in the U.S. and internationally, only a decade ago I would have dismissed much of that which follows. Understanding what I now do, I am compelled to state it.

Citizens are seeking more control over policies and decisions that shape their communities and destinies. In cities from Seattle to Jacksonville, in nations like South Africa and Russia, and in many non-physical "communities of interest" around the globe, they seek to understand their situations and create a better future. New ways are evolving for relating to others and to important issues, as communities adopt tools and techniques ranging from collaborative visioning and decision-making processes to innovative technologies.

Communities can be conceived in many different ways, from city neighborhoods to ecosystems, from nation states to Internet discussion groups. Different approaches provide entry points into the total human system which defines our civilization and its future options. The word sustainability itself reveals the potential for different interpretations and the limitations of language. At the least, it offers a vision of ultimate goals, while valuing current and future resources, natural and human.

Traditional attempts to promote local progress have primarily focused on economic development. This typically meant attracting or expanding a large manufacturing business, with relatively high paying jobs. As U.S. manufacturing jobs were moved to access cheaper labor, these community efforts usually produced a zero sum game, even when the jobs gained were equivalent to those lost (which they often were not). At best, the gains of one locale are the loss of another, however, the process itself can be exhausting for communities, as they spend significant time, effort and money. Promising reduced taxes and other benefits may increase profits for individual businesses, but the overall impact is lost efficiency for society as a whole, with little or no net benefit for communities.

More innovative approaches to improving communities acknowledge the interdependence of a healthy economy, environmental integrity and human well being. This broader, whole systems approach evaluates more than mere economic output, which often benefits only a narrow sector of society. For example, increasing the quality of education and reducing crime benefit everyone.

Some communities have focused on developing indicators of sustainability or quality of life to monitor trends important to citizens. Others have chosen to build capacities for the future, like electronic communications, or to convene consensus processes to envision their direction and goals. Still others have elected to limit growth and protect fragile environments, or to identify comparative advantages like high technology resources to build their economies.

Varied community approaches become recognizable as examples of the principle of emergence in complex systems. They self organize into a higher level of complexity, analogous to the World Wide Web on the Internet, as the addition of more participants increases the value for everyone. The Internet is emerging as the media of social transformation for the future. It builds the capacity to connect people with the crucial issues in their lives in ways never before possible. In contrast, the major media of today are large corporations often owned by even larger corporations, with interests far removed from communities.

Although communities choose different entry points, common themes are emerging. Organizations like Communities of the Future are helping communities across the country identify new models of leadership, continually learn (especially from their own experiences), and embrace the strategies, tools and resources to define and pursue a common vision. Together they create a whole within the community greater than the sum of the parts.

At their best, these new community processes create honest, unbiased forums, identify support for common goals and are open to all community members. They can be analogous to tribal processes of indigenous people, where all voices can be heard, and the common good is considered. They differ sharply from typical efforts to promote only private financial gain. In stark contrast are examples such as the current nuclear power industry, producing a waste which is highly toxic for thousands of years, and a tobacco industry that misrepresented its products and marketing to youth for profit.

Operating in conflict with community efforts are the forces of globalization, which seek to eliminate local restrictions on the flows of capital and the manner of doing business. Current economic globalization does not promote an interdependent world, but an homogenous one, with a uniform agenda of profit and control of markets, systems, and ultimately, populations.

Technology provides faster communications, better products and more choices than ever before. We all benefit as we create self-reinforcing systems of increased expectations and better delivery mechanisms. Market systems work exceptionally well in some cases, and dismally in others, such as environmental protection.

Many forces and trends interact in these complex systems. Some described above empower individuals and communities towards evolution and self determination, while others limit choices. Major natural events like hurricanes and earthquakes, wars, the price of energy (especially oil), interest rate levels and currency stability all operate beyond the control of any community and most nations. The best community level efforts can be overwhelmed by them.

Economic globalization is so powerful because it establishes a new, hierarchical system which can override actions at the community level. Market integration and instantaneous global communication create the potential for huge economic and social impacts. In some ways, there is a parallel with the establishment of the U.S., when native American tribes became subject to a new federal government, which made rules and regulations about how they would live without consulting them.

The Asian financial crisis that began in 1997 in Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia illustrates the influence on sovereign nations. When these countries became unable to protect the values of their currencies, and in effect allowed them to be devalued, speculative forces in the financial markets attacked them further. The countries lost billions of dollars, depleted foreign exchange reserves, and encountered severe problems of liquidity and private loan repayment.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) offered loans, with conditions which had been sought for years without success by the U.S. and other developed countries. The Asian countries ultimately lost this battle to protect their national sovereignty. In return for loans to South Korea, the IMF identified eight conditions, including allowing foreign investors to own majority stakes in Korean businesses and having the central bank use a western model of independence from the government. Local press has called the dramatic increase in crimes "IMF Survival Crimes," and a recent poll revealed 26% of South Koreans feel an urge to kill themselves, with the main reason being economic hardship. Thailand now permits 100% foreign ownership of its commercial banks, which the U.S. had pursued for years, up from 25% before the crisis.

When Indonesia’s currency lost over half of its value, the country became desperate for liquidity. The IMF rejected a currency board similar to Hong Kong’s, which could have worked towards the same economic goals. Instead the IMF insisted that Indonesia join the global central banking system as a condition for its loans.

When the IMF prevailed, it forced further international control of country monetary systems. Rejecting the currency board in Indonesia meant that loan repayments, country-level economics and national policies became secondary to control of the monetary system, which is effective control of the economic system. This control of national monetary systems is also occurring in Thailand, South Korea and China, as they move towards central banks modeled after the US Federal Reserve System of debt-based money, which increases inflation, benefits holders of capital and authorizes private banks to create money from nothing. Many consider forcing political changes on desperate countries that had previously rejected them an abuse of the IMF’s power.

All of these systems interact with each other in both a web of complexity and a hierarchical structure. At the most basic level are the wants and needs of people for goods and services, provided during most of human history by self sufficiency and forms of barter. With the development of the means of mass production and transportation systems, the opportunity for profit evolved our current western system of a "real economy" to provide them. Currency and monetary systems create a third level, the financial economy, which enables the real economy to operate beyond current stocks of resources by financing operations and expansion. The financial economy controls the real economy, and ultimately the well being of a country and its people.

The rapid evolution of a global financial economy based on electronic funds has, for the time being at least, created very different monetary systems than those backed by gold. Financial systems control real economies through interest rates and access to credit, and also dwarf them in size. The volume of foreign exchange markets is over 60 times that of all global trade and foreign direct investment, far beyond the needs of financing the real economy.

No amount of additional credit can compensate for continued corruption and nepotism, or for inadequate foundations, like Japan’s speculative land bubble, which supported an overvalued stock market. But when credit is unavailable, or costs too much, the real economy will contract, causing pain to people who bear the consequences.

While this is not a defense of corruption, nepotism and bad decisions in any country, the IMF was never intended to be the battering ram to open markets for multinational corporations, or the architect of a global financial system. It has also become the angel of mercy for private lenders who made bad decisions and will now benefit from the $120 billion plus bailout in Asia.

This bailout of major lenders once again in Asia, as in Latin America in the 1980s, is antithetical to the operation of the free market. It requires government intervention in the market. Multinational corporations, businesses and lenders, dealt with each other and made mistakes, even forcing some bankruptcies. They now seek to have the national governments of the borrowing businesses repay the defaulted loans. An enormous impact falls on the citizens of countries like Indonesia, a country where 82% of the people have an average income of $360 per year. This is a direct subsidy of those who escape accountability for their decisions.

This subsidy is being actively sought by major business and financial interests. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is "furiously lobbying Congress to approve the $18 billion in new financing (for the IMF)." Along with another major business organization, the Business Roundtable, they are "alerting lawmakers on the amount of international business in their state or district at risk if another crisis hits and the I.M.F. is unable to respond." They want the IMF ready for the next bailout, as available funds will cover the current bailout. Battling for subsidies overrides any concern for the "free market," which appears to be only an inconvenient slogan when subsidies are possible.

Why is the IMF bailing out lenders for 100% of their mistakes? Why are the largest, most powerful business interests in the U.S. asking for government subsidies to insure funds for a future bailout? Of the 100 largest global economies, more than half are now corporations. The biggest, strongest and most powerful are taking advantage of the weakest of Indonesia. Are we proud of a result in direct conflict with everything the U.S. claims as a nation to represent, from capitalism to protection of the underdog? In some cultures, the most powerful are the guardians for the rest of society. Apparently in our culture, they are not ashamed to prey on the weakest of humanity.

A version of the golden rule in the world of finance and business is "whoever has the gold makes the rules." The IMF action with Korea and Indonesia illustrates how the rule can be applied far beyond merely loan repayments to effective domination. Is this the definition of the rule our society as a whole would choose if asked?

International treaties are crucial to globalization and to human well being. The question in every case is who does the treaty serve. Treaties which protect the environment or insure the quality of life are so important (e.g. banning chemical weapons, or eliminating ozone destroying chemicals), that global needs supersede the desires of any one community. Mere commerce is another matter though.

An important example is the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) which has been in negotiation at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris since 1995 with virtually no public discussion or involvement. MAI would preclude nations and regions from maintaining barriers to the flow of capital, such as short term speculative investments, which can upset markets and cause wild swings in prices. At its worst, financial speculation can undermine the real economy of a nation, as happened when Indonesia plunged into crisis after its currency was attacked.

MAI would also require nations to treat foreign corporations the same as domestic ones, remove the ability to protect a strategic industry from foreign ownership, limit environmental laws of a nation, and permit corporations to sue nations in secret international tribunals not open to public scrutiny.

The 29 developed countries of OECD began to negotiate MAI after a similar effort was rejected by the World Trade Organization (WTO), where it was called the Multilateral Investment Agreement, or MIA. With 132 members, strong opposition emerged at WTO from developing countries. Even the conservative Economist reported that "… governments of developing countries increasingly see MAI as an exercise in neo-colonialism, designed to give rich-world investors the upper hand."

The first public awareness of MAI negotiations occurred when a draft was leaked last year. Once exposed, public opposition to MAI was so strong that over 600 international non governmental organizations (NGOs) signed a joint statement against it and launched a campaign to stop it in countries all over the world. Attacks on it have been front page news in France, and half of Canadian provinces have released statements against it. Street demonstrations have occurred in a number of countries of Europe, with some describing it as a war. The European Parliament voted over 400 against to 8 for to reject MAI. The NGO effort in the U.S. was reported widely on the Internet by Public Citizen and Friends of the Earth, sources for the information on MAI in this article. The successful opposition to MAI to date is evidence of the growing influence of community power and of the Internet, as MAI went into renegotiation in April 1998.

Meanwhile, the commonality of interest is so strong for those promoting globalization that the IMF is seeking to amend its Articles to mandate its ability to oversee the liberalization of capital flows should MAI fail. One way or another, the global power structure intends to promote its goals for profit and control.

Incredibly, few U.S. citizens are even aware of MAI, because the major U.S. print media has elected not to report it. A digital search of the New York Times and Washington Post revealed that as of the end of March 1998, neither had reported on the MAI during the past year to describe its existence, the resistance to it worldwide, or the cooperation of the NGOs to resist it. The only mentions were three letters to the editor and one editorial emphasizing the complexity for negotiators of having to deal with the interests of citizens. What is all the news that’s fit to print if it does not include global treaties that would so broadly affect the rights of people and nations to self determination? It compels me to ask, is this mere oversight, or is it support for a particular type of globalization?

As this article was being sent to the publisher, the New York Times reported on the financial problems in Russia, citing the situation in Malaysia and sources who said it was the "inevitable clash between the power of government and the power of markets…In Russia, Malaysia, and even Japan, the United States is insisting on reforms that would essentially give power to investors to move their money across borders at will, instead of to governments seeking to control their own destinies." What kind of "reform" is it that conflicts with the ability of nations and peoples attempting to control their destinies?

Despite assurances from trade negotiators that labor, environmental and other laws of national concern are not threatened by treaties like MAI, there is strong evidence to the contrary. A current threat to U.S. environmental law comes from the WTO, created from the 1994 Uruguay Round of the General Agreement for Tariff and Trade (GATT). WTO issued a final decision in early April, 1998 in an action brought against the U.S. by India, Malaysia, Thailand and Pakistan. They complained about a U.S. law which restricts imports of shrimp harvested with equipment that results in the death of sea turtles, an endangered species worldwide, when for almost a decade, alternatives have been available for US$75. The U.S. may appeal the decision, but if a U.S. environmental protection law can be invalidated, what chance do smaller countries have to protect what they value? What could happen to the U.S. itself if it became less influential? While that may seem unlikely, only a few years ago Japan seemed invincible.

The effects of treaties are magnified by a global trend concentrating a greater percentage of income and assets into the wealthiest individuals within countries and among countries themselves. As the most wealthy increase their holdings, more people live in poverty, and the middle classes of developed countries are squeezed to maintain their standards of living. Many people are working longer hours, have two wage earners in the family, or hold more than one job. Ironically all take time away from the family values that fit into slogans, but rarely policies, of U.S. political parties.

Future population increases and advances in technology will continue downward pressure on global wages. We do not need all of the people now available to produce the goods and services demanded with the current concentration of income and wealth. Low global wages benefit multinational corporations and the financial economy, while providing cheaper consumer goods, all at increased human costs. What are the limits of such a system, and what happens when they are reached?

Businesses willing (or threatening) to relocate, will benefit from continued competition among countries and communities desperate for economic stimulus and jobs. Once a country becomes part of the global economy, it is very difficult to withdraw, just as once a country owes money to the IMF, the world’s "lender of last resort," it will repay regardless of human cost. The only thing worse than being hopelessly in debt to the international financial system is to be excluded from it.

Fair treatment for businesses is a reasonable request, as is fair treatment for communities. A healthy business sector is essential to a healthy society. Laws, regulations and restrictions should be the minimum necessary to accomplish the goals of society. Regulatory agencies should apply laws fairly and uniformly, efficiently facilitate compliance and expeditiously process permit requests. They should not use their powers to make policy decisions. In business, time is money, and wasted time usually results in increased costs.

From the community perspective, why should any community or nation be required to open itself to a business which will severely impact its way of life? Should communities be required to permit "big box" chain retail stores which will drive small retailers out of business and pay low wages if people in a community do not desire them? In the U.S. some communities have used zoning limitations to prohibit them. Life is a series of tradeoffs, and one of those which people may elect to make is to forego access to cheaper consumer goods to maintain a quality of life measured by other means.

No community in the world is sufficiently independent to determine its own destiny. Even remote indigenous cultures find their lives and environments changed. The developed world, with its almost total reliance on the "real and financial economies," grows and alters everything in its path.

Who sets the agendas for those economies and societies? Should citizens have the opportunity to contribute, or will every strategic decision be made by those higher in the levels of complexity and power? Elected representatives often seem more concerned about powerful financial interests that contributed to their campaigns than to the people who voted for them. While much of the current resistance to federal policies in the U.S. is self-serving, it is also a valuable commentary on the desire for more self determination.

Western societies are in transition from a mechanistic view of the universe based on Newtonian reductionism to theories of complexity emerging with quantum mechanics. This shift has been slow in many disciplines, and yet it is only a matter of time before it is completely embraced. Resistance to new paradigms has a solid place in human history. Even after Copernicus demonstrated that the earth revolved around the sun, it took nearly a century for the medieval Catholic Church to stop persecuting his followers and four centuries to acknowledge its errors with Galileo. It is crucial to understand that community evolution to higher levels of complexity is solidly supported by the new science.

Like the theories of Copernicus, the quest for sustainability and the acceptance of complexity are paradigm shifts. Mere trends can reverse and change, but paradigm shifts evolve. They can be denied or resisted, but they are based on a deeper truth which invites wisdom and humility in their acceptance. Accepting a major shift offers new ways to understand while acknowledging the limits of prior knowledge. Western civilization developed primarily through the framework of reductionism. It evolved to this point, and yet every system has its limits. Molecular biologists will never find the source of human consciousness by looking at atoms any more than medical students will by dissecting cadavers.

At one time, science promised to identify the "basic building blocks of nature." If only they could be found, we were told, then we could understand the fundamental principles of the universe, implying we would be able to control it for our purposes. When particles behaved differently than expected, and the very act of observation influenced what we saw, we began to understand them as more like pure energy than physical matter. Looking at ever smaller particles, we did not find anything that looked like basic building blocks.

Just as the process of observing atomic particles influences what we see, observing and collaborating in human interaction changes the results. As an example, few wife beaters act in public. There isn’t a "basic human nature" which can be applied to all cultures, peoples or situations, or even one that is uniform at all times. We are each different when situations require. For example, collaboration may be a valuable way of relating in many instances, but it hardly applies to life choices of one’s two-year old child.

The principle of emergence occurs across all levels. On an international level, the spontaneous global democracy movements of the last decade were hardly thought possible before they occurred. So different, and yet all part of the evolving human system, we saw the fall of the Berlin wall, the breakup of the former Soviet Union, the ending of apartheid in South Africa, and the movement for Palestinian rights. Seeking self determination in smaller communities is also part of the fractal patterns present at all levels. They are all part of what Sally Goerner calls our "web-world being driven to increasing complexity."

This web of relationships replaces linear hierarchies in many but not all ways. It does not mean that all events or locations on the web are of equal importance any more than all sites on the World Wide Web are of equal interest or quality. The ultimate implications of the "butterfly that causes a hurricane half a world away" may not be readily apparent, teaching us to learn from and value many elements in the world, but discernment remains essential.

We thus have an opportunity to view this web of the world through a "split screen." Part of our perception can see the interconnectedness of all elements and part can use discernment to understand apparent consequences of our choices. We can bridge to what we do not yet understand with a value system in alignment with our environment and our basic human spirituality as our knowledge evolves.

It is at the process level where the opportunity lies, as fractal geometry intersects human relations. Like repeating patterns in fractal geometry, human processes and ways of being are evident at different levels, from the local to the global. As self-organizing systems, they move towards greater complexity while retaining attributes of less complex levels. These human processes operate in families, teams and organizations of all types. Collaborative processes which contribute to something larger than individual needs are evident, as are consequences of ego-driven actions if we seek to control, dominate or manipulate.

Globalization itself is a self organizing system. Behaviors, relationships, and choices at local levels are also evident at the international level. These patterns at different levels reinforce each other as policies are implemented and benefits reaped. The beliefs and perspectives people internalize serve the interests of those who employ them, and those who internalize them best and perform well at lower levels advance.

A clear sense of values and vision is present in successful businesses where bottom-line profit, status, and authority are the rewards. Defining vision in a broader social context requires moving beyond one's immediate needs to recognizing the responsibilities we have to others and to our country for providing the unparalleled individual opportunity found in the U.S. These responsibilities accompany the rights we enjoy, and in fact demand.

Developing collaborative, democratic processes that build community across all levels will promote a sustainable future. These efforts are about empowering each other to responsibly participate and contribute. They are not about "touchy, feel-good" relationships that lack substance. They are about promoting true opportunity, aligning responsibility with authority and support, and identifying contributions, all in an open process while pursuing a common vision.

While we live in a complex world, the capacity to understand human systemic interactions should not be solely the province of experts. Most decisions are well within the realm of average common sense after we remove the jargon of the specialists. A clear example was the testimony in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger. Following confusing and conflicting expert testimony about the cause of the explosion, Nobel Laureate Richard Feyneman dipped the material of the "O Ring" into a glass of ice water, then easily broke it, illustrating that when it became too cold, it also became brittle and would break.

In fact, some matters are well beyond the knowledge of experts. As biologist Bruce Wilcox says, "the closer we look at ecosystems, the more we understand how little we actually know." Any one who has followed the predictions of economists knows how imprecise they are. Experts like scientists and economists will always be needed, and yet we can not expect them to provide the answers, only advice. Ultimately, we make decisions based on the values we hold. All of us, not only the experts, have responsibility for what we create or allow to be created.

There are a number of reasons we avoid considering the economic forces which shape our society. First, economics is a complicated subject, with experts often disagreeing. Although this is true, common sense still allows us to make reasonable judgments about the goals and direction we want. Second, we are dependent on and benefit from our economic system, and change is difficult to consider. All of us in the U.S. benefit from its global policies, as we export our debt with a reserve currency acceptable to others, a choice not available so far to many other countries. Third, we also must acknowledge that the most powerful economic forces benefit from the failure to understand what is happening, allowing them to promote their agendas. An example is "Reaganomics," which promised "trickle-down" prosperity for all, when the truth actually was the greatest concentration of wealth in U.S. history.

It is time we consider other choices, described below. We rarely consider opportunities for human evolution which can produce long-term benefits of harmony and collaboration. We know our understanding of the human mind and consciousness is in its infancy, requiring patience and a high tolerance for ambiguity as we learn how to create complex societal systems that work.

The evolutionary mandate applies to humanity as to all species. Biological or physical evolution is too slow for the rapid changes we are experiencing. We will either evolve in other ways, or life as we know it will drastically change. There are no guarantees. The dinosaurs were lost when a meteor struck, and the Romans poisoned themselves with lead in their water systems. How are we poisoning ourselves now? Can we understand where we are in the evolutionary trajectory and the potential if we make better choices? How can we develop strategies and policies to support the opportunities? We have fundamental choices to make concerning how we define our well being.

It seems to me there are four strategic choices available to all communities, 1) continue on the present course, 2) concentrate on traditional community issues such as education, crime, and physical infrastructure, 3) attempt to change and transform issues crucial to their futures, even if they operate at national or international levels, and 4) build an independent local economy capable of supplying local needs if the overall cost of dealing with the global economy is too high.

Choosing the first option invites fate alone to determine the course, and the second is like designing the interiors of railway cars which are being taken to a destination determined by others and, at best, only vaguely described to the passengers. Some may have window seats in well-appointed cabins labeled first class, believing their comfort will continue. Most avoid leaving that comfort to observe others in less fortunate passage. The recent U.S. trend to gated communities supports the analogy.

There is compelling evidence that the third and fourth choices are necessary elements of a successful community future, and that they can be successful. Globalization is defining and limiting many options for communities, suggesting strongly that the time to act is now, before the systems are completely designed and implemented. Opposition to bad ideas and systems is necessary. It is equally important to develop better ideas and systems. Boycotts by U.S. states of South Africa illustrated the potency of operating at non-traditional levels for important human issues, as does opposition to MAI by NGOs worldwide.

The real question in my opinion about the future of communities is who will determine the values from which policies are developed. Will our values be set by a relatively narrow group, the most powerful and aggressive? With strong motives for financial profit at almost any cost to society as a whole, they have the resources to promote their agenda. All the while they offer the traditional mantra of standard economic theory that growth does benefit all, when increasing, credible evidence is to the contrary. Recent studies in California indicate development fees and increased tax receipts from an expanded tax base do not pay for the costs of development and increased needs for fire, police and other services.

We also know conclusively that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is highly deficient as the measure of our well being, even in the economic domain alone. It measures only the gross throughput of resources, not the value received, if any. GDP may increase, and produce no net benefit (e.g. rebuilding after a casualty loss). Or, the benefit received may be very inefficient, like waste cleanup of a dispersed toxin. In the standard economic model, the more spent on the cleanup, the better the economy. And, it is important to acknowledge that some elements of society benefit regardless of where the funds are spent. The financial sector is an example, where lenders of capital benefit as long as the financing is repaid, regardless of net benefits or detriments to society.

The work of those like Herman Daly, Richard Douthwaite, Robert Goodland, Hazel Henderson and Robert Repetto conclusively illustrates that much of economic growth, as currently calculated, actually produces no net benefit and instead can actually produce net negative results.

Alternatively, can the values be set by a broader group using more accurate measurements, focusing on the future, and employing a fairness doctrine for everyone capable and willing to work for their place in society? Will the values that define policies and systems be only economic, or will they embrace the larger context of what it means to be human?

Is freedom only to choose among product types and brands, or can it include the freedom not to have some products available and become dependent on them? Who should make these choices? Should they be made at the community level or at the international level, or both? Of course, if a country like Japan makes policies to promote its exports and limit imports, reciprocity should apply.

To what extent should any community have the right to control its own future? Clearly, some questions do not belong at the smaller community level. U.S. civil rights recognized in the 1960s were a national concern which no community should be able to resist, however, there is a big difference between human rights and access to markets.

Only a few decades ago "Engine Charlie," head of General Motors, and "Electric Charlie," head of General Electric, spoke of what was good for America being good for their companies, and vice versa. The pendulum has swung completely. Now what is good for companies is only what increases shareholder value. The pendulum can swing again, to a more balanced position of understanding the relationships of communities, businesses and their financiers. These relationships can be founded on collaboration, establishing appropriate boundaries between them, and reasonable expectations of each.

The collaborative approach was not used in attempts like MAI, as negotiations were conducted in secret. Communities are where policies and decisions have their greatest effect on the greatest number of people, and it seems appropriate they be represented in the process. There is little evidence that those with an agenda of globalization have any concern for the future of communities. If those who value sustainable communities want to influence their future, they will link together and create a critical mass of political power.

The threat of the MAI united opposition to it, yet as anyone who has ever participated in local community efforts knows, it is far easier to prevent change than to effect it successfully. How can communities protect

their interests and influence their futures as much as possible? Here are a few suggestions:

• Conduct processes to identify the values, ethics and relationships desired by citizens. Connect with other community results and identify political candidates who will represent them at all levels.
• Develop new leaders who can work with the complex processes evolving.
• Develop community awareness of the power and impact of external factors, such as monetary systems, which define and limit economic options.
• Develop an understanding of their current situation, how it evolved, what influences it, define a preferred future, and build the capacities to achieve it.
• Identify a community strength or desire as a point of entry into a system of change which produces transformation and evolution.
• Develop processes and goals which promote individual opportunity and rewards for achieving a common good.
• Synthesize skills and knowledge across sectors and between levels of complexity. An example is a group of national business people developing a building for non-profit organizations that meet local community needs.
• Adopt appropriate technologies to communicate within the community and with other communities.
• Create links to other similarly situated communities as a strategy for mutual learning and political power.
• As the networks of communities evolve, try different ideas, both "conservative" and "liberal," evaluate results fairly for what can be learned, and use what works the best. Put ideology aside to be logical, fair, and effective. Share the results with others and learn from theirs.

From a political perspective, conservative and liberal no longer mean what I once thought they did, as a conservative President Reagan allowed the biggest deficits in U.S. history and created the largest public debt in the history of the world, while a moderate to liberal President Clinton voted for agreements like NAFTA which sent U.S. jobs to Mexico, despite promises it would not. As a nation and a global community, it is time to move beyond slogans and labels, to values and outcomes defined by a broader group.

Technology is only a tool to facilitate human collaboration, and although a very powerful one, it is only a means to an end and not the end itself. I do not mean to suggest it be employed to further single issue politics or replace representative democracy. Instead, it can be a tool to identify representatives who will embrace the values and goals of a broader segment of society.

As a strategy, mere income redistribution does not work. It deprives people of the satisfaction, rewards and self confidence which come from personal achievement, however individually defined and pursued. Strategies based on developing systems which provide individual opportunity, contribution to the common good, collaboration and appropriate rewards have ingredients the entire political spectrum should be able to support, especially if citizens define them. A major question is how to redefine value added to society as a whole. We are intelligent and creative enough to design systems that provide opportunity for financial success and human well being.

The financially most successful are part of a self organizing system related to globalization, evolving in a Darwinian model of survival of the fittest. When real value is added, material rewards should result, but not at the deliberate expense of the weakest in the human system, as with the lenders, the IMF and the people of Indonesia.

And, there may be a shift beginning, as leaders among the wealthy bring their talents and abilities to issues which affect others in the human community. Business leaders like Henry B. Schacht, chairman of Lucent Technologies, and John H. Dasburg, CEO of Northwest Airlines, are speaking out for more equity in the economic system. The New York City Investment Fund, established by Henry Kravis of leveraged buyout fame, is creating jobs and supporting African American businesses, although at a modest level now. Perhaps the most powerful individual action towards equity was made by Roger Enrico, CEO of PepsiCo, who voluntarily asked the Board of Directors to reduce his $900,000 salary to $1 and use the money for a scholarship fund for the children of employees making less than $60,000 per year.

With expertise, contacts, and access to funding, the most successful can choose to bring opportunity to others, as leaders, not dominators, of the human community. It would require them to embrace a fundamental shift in their values, and for the time being, it is their choice whether to do so. It is also important to acknowledge what Carolyn Lukensmeyer of America Speaks has said, that at no time in human history has inequity continued without eventually producing a revolution.

What do we really want in our communities and our societies? Is it primarily the pursuit of material possessions, or is it more? With a high percentage of people in the U.S. supporting environmental goals even if it means some reduced economic benefit, it is clear people want more than products at lowest cost.

At which level do we desire to live? Is it only in the material world, or can we bring the true spirituality of our higher selves into our day to day lives and relationships? We have the opportunity and the power to consciously choose to expect more from ourselves than merely developing the skills and resources to select the best products.

One of the most important issues for each of us is to find a place in the human community. We each ask if there will be enough of what we need for ourselves. Even those who have financial security, other resources and power often have fears they will lose them. We all have egos, powerful parts of ourselves that by their nature are never satisfied, always wanting more, better and different money, status, power, … just fill in the blank. They can cause us to be driven by a fear of not having or being enough, requiring our skill and discipline to control them.

As we design our civilizations, we thus define how we relate to each other. We amended the U.S. Constitution to rectify mistakes and omissions as our consciousness evolved and we learned. Contrary to fatalists who identify only a lower level of consciousness as "human nature," we learned that women should have the right to vote, and that African Americans are nothing less than equal under the law. What are the evolutionary issues we will view differently in the future? We can identify our trajectory of evolution and advance the process to achieve it.

Author and futurist Robert Theobald refers to the coming century as the "Healing Century," when we heal ourselves, our relationships with each other and our environment. We can do so if we choose.

Joseph Kruth has been in business for 30 years, has an M.A. in economics, and is also a founder and Chair of the Tahoe Center for a Sustainable Future.

Daly, Herman. Beyond Growth. Boston, MA; Beacon Press, 1996

Daly, Herman. Steady State Economics. Washington, DC; Island Press, 1991

Douthwaite, Richard. The Growth Illusion. Tulsa, OK; Council Oaks Books, 1992

Douthwaite, Richard. Short Circuit. Devon, England; Green Books, 1996

Henderson, Hazel. Building a Win-Win World: Life Beyond Global Economic Warfare. Berrett-Koehler Publishing.

Henderson, Hazel. Paradigms in Progress: Life Beyond Economics. Berrett-Koehler Publishing

Jackson, Andrew, ed. Dismantling Democracy: the MAI and its Impact. Vancouver, Canada; Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 1998. tel (604) 801-5121

Thoren, Theodore and Warner, Richard. The Truth in Money Book. Chagrin Falls, Ohio: Truth in Money, Inc., 1994

Websites:

Friends of the Earth: http://www.foe.org/ga.loot.html

Public Citizen: http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/MAI/mai600ngo.htm