Chapter 1. What is a cause of the crisis?
Mankind have no enemies excepting themselves, calamities of mankind
occur from their own
irrationalism. Therefore for the present it is impossible to name as
«a noosphere» - that is to say the
world, where the mind is ruling - the thin layer of space on a surface
of Globe, where a man
dominates. Now this still rich and perfect world collapses because
of excessive exploitation of it by
mankind economic activity, that has increased enormously in
connection with demographic explosion,
that has taken place. At the same time the blind leaders of mankind,
having pretension to be the
mankind mind, try to cure the illness of a society by the further
economic
and demographic growth.
This article is devoted to decision of the mankind problems: elimination
of neediness,
violence and ecological threat. . Science and technology have made
mankind of XX century powerful
incomparably with former centuries. It would seems, the abundance should
be achieved long time ago
and on this basis all «damned» questions are solved. However the world
is in crisis and the problems of
mankind are not solved by their intellectual leaders because their
out-of-date philosophy does not wish to
perceive that the science speaks1. And this problem of a
world outlook is a theme of the article too.
FOOTNOTE 1: - a science, but not those or other scientists, the narrow
experts, which can
understand something but also to not understand something other.
An example. Some scientists
the ecologists name the woods of Amazon and Siberian taiga «as lungs
of the planet», as are
spoken, these are supplying the planet with oxygen. But the science
says another: that the old
woods exist in balance - it has rotted as much, how many it has
grown, therefore the woods
produces as much oxygen and carbonic acid, how many absorbs. Only
young forest produces
surplus of oxygen, as accumulates carbon in growing weight of wood.
The next example. Ours
mad scientists the demographers call upon to populate Russian Far
East with the Chineses, also
the rest Russia - with Caucasians and Middle-Asians: they says,
the labor power is necessary in
order to feed the population. But you see, this «increasing of labor
power» as well means the
increasing of the population, which needs to be fed! And one more
example. Demographers
look clever when they declare: «The pensioners live for a longer
and longer time, but the means
for them are decreasing because of reduction of birth-rate, hence,
also of decreasing of the
labor power». But let! Because of reduction of birth-rate the less
means is necessary for children
and, hence, should remain more for the old men!
For example it is impossible to prevent the global ecological catastrophe
by present methods of «struggle
for preservation of a nature» because neither the protesting actions
of «Greens» nor state preservation
measures - are aimed at elimination of the deep cause of ecological
crisis, they cure only the symptoms
and consequences. But it is the same to try to cure AIDS by greasing
the ulcers on a body of the patient
with the green antiseptic.The struggle «for ecology» is being carried
on against infinite consequences of
the sole, as a matter of fact, true cause - the demographic one - to
that persistently shut their eyes2.
(FOOTNOTE 2: «The Voice of America» (29.5.96) informs: «The unattended
growth of the
opulation of cities threatens with accident, if its employment will
not be supplied». The reason
is named - the unattended growth. But to struggle it is offered
with consequences - with shortage
of means of existence). Therefore «the struggle» has gone into
impasse, to a situation, that Russian
names as «you'll do it but never will complete it» or «a nose has been
dragged out - now a tail gets
stuck «. But probably, it is worrying the «Greens» a little, they are
consoled in the process of struggle,
are satisfied with that they «do at least something». But If we really
want to relieve mankind of ecological
threat (also of need, wars, totalitarian dictatorships), it is necessary
at first to ascertain correctly the
diagnosis, that is to say scientifically3 to open
the
deep cause and the mechanism of illness.
FOOTNOTE 3: «But among the scientists, as well as among the ordinary
people, there are such
ones for whom the quiet life is more dear. To study and to study
is far calmer than to promise...
Then it also will be necessary to be justified that you have not
found you promised. It is calmer
to describe a process, instead of to search for the reasons also
ways of their elimination. It had
been told to me at one of laboratories with frankness and even with
pride: «Here you see how
we work. But we are not engaged with idle thinkings» (Gregory Gurevich,
a science fiction
write).
The threat of ecological catastrophe approaches simultaneously from
the different directions: pollution
and impoverishing of the seas, oceans, rivers, underground waters,
pollution and destruction of woods
and agricultural grounds, pollution and change of an atmosphere, reduction
of the protective ozone layer, pernicious changes of a climate, the rise
of the ocean level, accumulation of deadly radioactive
substances made by uncountable atomic power stations4, the
impoverishing of the vegetative and animal
world, exhaustion of resources of the planet. Obviously the reason
is not simply, as speak, «in the
negligent, prodigal relation of a man to a nature». Global and
versatile character of the ecological crisis
point out on fundamentalty of its reasons and, accordingly, requires
fundamental, radical changes in life
of mankind. So what are the reasons?
FOOTNOTE 4: The number of reactors only of atomic power stations
in Japan - 53, in France -
59, in the USA - 104, in Great Britain - 35, in Germany - 19, in
Russia -29, on Ukraine - 14, in
other countries - 120, total in the world - 433.
It is baby's prattling that the publicists and even the philosophers
speak about the reasons of ecological
crisis and other disasters of mankind. It is known the wars go also
in the animals world - for example
between lions prides. But in philosophers opinion, the deep causes
of wars are: «envy» (Vladimir
Soloviev), national prejudices, «dissociation» and «ideologies». It
turns out that the reasons of existence
of wars are the misunderstandings and lack of upbringing. The revolution
in Russia, in their opinion, has
taken place also because of bad upbringing and because either Marx
hadn't understood something, or
Marx had been understood incorrectly. Also a reason of the ecological
crisis in general and of the
Chernobyl accident in particular5 - as if in «mentality
of the nature-conquest» or that the people could
but do not want to refuse conveniences of the civilization and progress.
But the academician Velikhov - concerning nuclear energy - has told absolutely
another. He has told: «We have no choice». So the
human history is being promoted not by whims and misunderstandings
but necessity.
FOOTNOTE 5: If to count only material damage, the Chernobyl accident
has cost for the
country in 400 billions dollars.
In the majority of the textbooks of ecology - as it is branch
of biology - there is talk only about biology
but the question on the reason of ecological crisis of mankind is not
put at all, and even there isn't talk
about the crisis. But in the K. M. Petrov textbook of «General Ecology»
the question is elucidated
widely, however the answer is absent. In the textbook it is told: «The
reason of crisis - the contradictions
in mutual relation (read: notorious «infringement of harmony») between
society and nature». However it is
not an answer, but a tautology, the circulation along a circle, it
is the same that to tell: «the reason of bad
state of health of the man is that he's ill». Therefore it is necessary
to repeat the question: well, but what is
the reason of this «contradictions in mutual relation», what
is the reason of «the infringements of harmony»?
But the biologists, ecologists do not think over this question properly.
Everybody beforehand (a priori)
have agreed, that the reason is immorality of the society, of a man,
almost the «Adam's sin». Therefore
biologists answer: «But it is any more not our competence, the sociologists
and philosophers should
answer this question». But the sociologists with the philosophers can't
answer too. Because ecology is
not their competence. Because it is necessary to search the reason
of ecological crisis, ALSO OF ALL
OTHER DISASTERS OF MANKIND, just in ecology. But not in «the
infringement of its laws», not
in «the contradictions with nature», not in «having power over nature»
- but in laws of ecology, laws of
biosphere, according to which mankind still lives and by which they,
like animals, still is held in servitude.
As Teillhard De Chardin spoke: as a matter of fact, Homo Sapiens has
only just departed a point of the
occurrence, the human history still is a natural history.
Actually, the scientists haven't an intellectual boldness to answer
truthfully - even to themselves - a
question about the first-cause of the approaching ecological catastrophe,
and as a matter of fact, also of
all other disasters of mankind. The philosophers and publicists only
vaguely blame «the dark sides of
progress», the scientists name the ecological crisis as «technogeneous»,
but the most «scientific» and
serious it is considered to list about ten «reasons» of ecological
crisis. But verbosity is one of the best
ways of passing over in silence. Really such ostensibly «objectivity»
and «scientific completeness of
researching» serve to belittling of the real cause of crisis - of necessity
to feed and to support the
excessively increased population. Because the one who recognizes this
reason as main, should offer
very unpopular measures. But the intellectual establishment does not
want to expose to threat their own
high status in the society. A word «establishment» exactly means - «people
of high status». Therefore if in
the long list of the reasons of the crisis the scientists still mention
«excessive growth of the population»6,
this theme never is thought over and told up to the end - probably, according
the saying, «nobody would like
to run in a direction opposite where a crowd runs». And if the authors
pass to specific ways of an
exit out of the crisis, then there is not even a word about regulation
of a population number and even
about «regulation of population growth». The long list of necessary
measures corresponding to the list
of «reasons» is given again: here are «to improve the monitoring» and
«to strengthen the ecological
education», and «to increase the penalties», and «to close harmful manufactures»,
«to develop
waste-less - and bio-technology», «to improve an agriculture», «to
develop solar power» etc., but about
the main - about specific measures of regulation of a population - there
is not even a word. Sometimes
in this long list of measures the uncertain phrase is added: «to control
the birth-rate». But you see,
so-called «control of birth-rate» is meaning only: «If I want - I limit
myself to one child, but if I want - I'll
have got two children, three, four - if I consider my means allow it».
FOOTNOTE 6: They never say «an excessive population» because for
them their own «prestige»
is more dear than a truth! On TV «Dialogues about animals» (9.6.98)
a woman who was making
comments on film about mountain gorillas, has told: the gorillas
population has decreased twice
because the woods are taken out under ploughed fields because this
area on a border of Congo
and Rwanda «has highest density of the population». But if this
area is so densely populated, how
did the gorillas live there earlier? And why are they suddenly dying
out now? Obviously this
woman should told not «density of the population is great», but
«density of the population grows
very much». It is one more example, how the scientists, trying to
be the defenders of a nature, at
the same time because of their «culture» in every possible way are
making round the sharp
angles, are slurring over a picture.
Goethe has told: «The not-writing people have one advantage: they do
not risk to compromise
themselves». But the today's scientists know other way to be not compromised:
they write much and
ornate but write platitudes - so that nobody has found oneself offended
or obliged to something unp
leasant. Therefore all their speeches are fruitless.
Just as in the vast document of 1980 «The World Nature Conservation
Strategy», accepted by
International Union of Nature Conservation working under UN aegis,
about the main thing are spoken
only casually: «The degradation of nature comes with such speed it
directly threatens to well-being of
many people and stability of the states. We have the only one Earth.
This perfect ship contains all the
necessary for indefinitely long trip on it. But the people should not
use a stock of life-support as drunken
sailors. The resources of the Earth are finite and are not capable
to support the unlimited number of the representatives of any species of
alive nature. In other words, the unlimited growth of number of the
people is dangerous. This problem is difficult, delicate, but it is
impossible to overlook it, otherwise
famine or other disaster will act inevitably as a regulator of the
population number». («Nature and a
Man» No 3. 1981, page 64)
But in this citation as it is usual the cautious-evasive statements
of the scientists should be deciphered.
Firstly, the reason of destruction of environment is not «the excessive
growth
of the population», as
always are spoken, but the excessive population - even if this
population number at this moment does
not grow but falls, however remains excessive for environment. And
if now the environment collapses so appreciably, it means the population
is already excessive, already has exceeded the «limits» and should
be reduced.
Secondly, who are those, who should not «overlook» but «overlook» the
problem of a population
number? And why do they overlook? It is vital important to dot one's
«i's» and cross one's «t's». Really,
each schoolboy, as seems, should know that the Earth has the form of
a sphere, that ours world is limited. Especially an intellectual elite
should not «overlook» it. But there is not more blind than the one for
whom
it is not profitable to see. It is not profitable to see a problem
because the problem, as was told, «is
delicate». By telling «a» they should to tell both «b», and «c» - and
to appear as «the malthusists».
Thirdly, in this citation the keywords are: «disasters - as a regulator
of a population». Here is the real
cause of mankind disasters! The disasters are not a punishment from
Heaven, as were thought formerly.
Also it is not simply «c' est la vie» - as the science of new time
suggests (implies). The disasters are the regulators necessary and
inevitable, only as the mankind does not want to adjust their own number
voluntarily. It becomes clear why, despite of all the occurred progress
and growth of manufacture, the
mankind continues to beat with their problems as a fly against a glass
and just creates new problems:
because simultaneously with the growth of manufacture the population
has grown too - for 1000 years
20 times!
The following diagram from the A. Barnett's book «The Human Species»
(Penguin Book, 1961.) is
a bright illustration of this demographic explosion - concerning Europe
.
.
It is easy to calculate by the diagram that the most abrupt rise on the
diagram means an increment of
population only on 0,6 % per a year. The increment in 7,5 times smaller
- on 0,08 % would mean the
further development along the dashed line - the catastrophic development
too, it is visible from the
diagram. Today the world increment is almost in 17 times (!) higher,
it is 1,35 % per a year. It means that
each family has 3 children on the average. At such an increment the
population is being doubled every
50 years!
It is clear this demographic explosion would be impossible if there
was not even greater explosion of manufacture. Also presently in the advanced
countries - in the countries with low birth-rate (that is to say
in the countries with so-called «the controllable birth-rate») - it
is marked the increasing of birth-rate
during the periods of rise of economy and an incomes level. But in
underdeveloped countries the birth
rate is great already, at the periods of economics rise there the death-rate
is decreasing. Thus the growth
of manufacture also the growth of the population cause and spur each
other till the increasing difficulties
and disasters do not stop one or another. The further technical progress
discovers some new resources
and opportunities for manufacture growth, the situation is being facilitated
temporarily but because of it
the growth of the population is being renewed, and with increase of
industrial activity and population
number the problems and disasters are increasing again. And till the
mankind will not have broken off
this mad vicious circle (or, if you want, the spiral), the mankind
will move along a way of progress and
new disasters «forward» - to the catastrophe. But languid-pessimistic
philosophers will twist their mouths,
making a word «progress», as though the evil is in it.
Here usually are objecting: «However we see the contrary - in the poor
countries the growth of the
population is large but in the rich countries the growth has almost
stopped, and somewhere the
population even decreases now!»
As a matter of fact these seeming exceptions just illustrate, confirm
a rule. That's not the point that the
first countries are poor but that the manufacture grows there. In the
poor countries the growth of the
population is spurred just by growth of production (or of foreign help,
earnings abroad and so on). The
growth of the population physically could not occur, if the amount
of made (or imported) food did not
grow. And the mass illnesses, famine and violence in these countries
are, by their standards, a norm of
life but are not such the disasters that could reduce the birth-rate.
Somewhere in Africa, in Brazil, in
Bangladesh even an inhabitant of a bidonville (area of self-building
up urban slums), who have a piece of essential bread for this day, is ready
to breed children, and there we see rapid growth of the population.
On the other hand, the Europeans, on ours standards, live richly. But
they, as a whole, do not consider
then and have not more than one or two children because just because
of material difficulties at the
greater number of children they can not provide the worthy, on their
notion, life for the family7. Thus,
just the neediness constrains birth-rate, instead of so-called «orientation
on mini-family» discovered by demographers. In next chapter I'll try to
show that this «worthy» level of material life is not luxury, not a
whim but necessity for a «technotronic» civilization. And if
in Europe the population decreases even
when some growth of manufacture - it means the necessary quality of
life is not provided. But if it will
have been provided and exceeded, the population will grow again in
the advanced countries too. Thus
the degree of the same material difficulties and disasters in the different
countries and epochs is estimated differently but there is the immutable
general law of all that is alive: in the system of a biological species
-
the environment any species aspires to expansion, to as possible as
the greater number of a population,
and for this purpose to a maximum of production of the vital goods
and to most economical, on the
verge of shortage a necessary minimum of individual consumption of
the goods. Therefore the growth of production, on the one hand, and the
disasters, on another hand - are appearing as the regulators of the population
number.
FOOTNOTE 7: At 1997 in «rich and successful» Sweden for the first
time the number of births
has appeared less than the number of deaths. But despite of this
overcrowding self-feel of Sweden,
44 thousand immigrants were admitted into the country, and because
of it the population had
grown again.
At one time, in the Middle Ages the crops had increased, there was no
famine - but because of it the
population had increased. But because of overcrowding the epidemics
had appeared and had occupied
a place of famine as the main regulator of a population of Europe.
Later, when the plague, the cholera,
the smallpox had been overcome, the population, in consequence of it,
had increased again - then the
regulating role of wars and revolutions has been amplified. Unaccidentally
the world wars and totalitarian regimes, unprecedented before, have appeared
just in XX century - «at the acme of enlightenment and
progress» in those old parts of the world where were no free space
and resources, as in the New
World - in Northern and Southern America. But if owing to the coming
of «unification of mankind», wars
will be eliminated too, then the two remaining regulators - ecological
accidents and global totalitarian
dictatorship should take complete effect and at last stabilize a population
of the Earth - just like the
situation on an Easter-island «had been stabilized» when the excessively
multiplied population had
transformed a blossom island into desert and had established there
literally a cannibal regime.
Thus, «a technological stage in development of a society» is not in
itself is not the reason of ecological
crisis as it is wrongly asserted by the scientists8. We
see a hard ecological situation in the underdeveloped countries (destruction
of woods and resources of ocean, desertification of grounds) and we know
that the local anthropogeneous ecological crises and accidents bringing
the civilizations to destruction,
happened earlier, when there was no today’s technique anywhere. The
reason that the ecological
catastrophe just now has begun to threaten to all mankind - it is the
stoppage or easing of acting of
other NATURAL disasters-regulators of a population and the absence
of ARTIFICIAL regulators -
the reasonable state regulating, that in a reasonable (noospheric)
society should replace former regulators-disasters.
FOOTNOTE 8: The US vice-president Albert Gor had published the book
«The Earth has been
hung by a thread» where has declared that «the engine of internal
combustion is a terrible threat
for mankind». While actually the threat is the unchecked propagating
and, accordingly, the
infinite growth of economy, that are being supported by Gor/
Chapter 2. Misconceptions and sophisms justifying the growth.
Probably everyone agree in the following: if to solve economic, material
problems of mankind, to
liquidate poverty, neediness - there will not be of ground also for
others disasters: for destruction of
environment, for many illnesses, criminality, wars, revolutionary dictatorships
and even for hard
consequences of natural disasters - for example, of earthquakes - when
the people perish in cheap tall
buildings as it was in Spitak and Neftegorsk. About a philosophical
problem of «the Golden Age» - but
as a matter of fact, how to arrange REASONABLE, and therefore also
happy life on the Earth, by
solving, first of all, the material problems of mankind - there are
five points of view (by not counting up
skeptical one): Christian point of view, communist one, socialist,
liberal-capitalist and noospheric.
1. The Christian point of view asserts the material problems will have
been solved when will be the
loving between people. By five breads it is possible to have fed a
crowd of five thousands person: the
main thing is to show to everybody how it is necessary to share - then
it will have turned out that many
people have provisions, and as a result everybody will be sufficed
- both propertied, and the have-nots,&nbssp;
and much will be left. Such an intelligent explanation of the Gospel
miracle about five breads
(Luke 9:12-19, John 6:5-13) L. N. Tolstoy gives. However in practice,
in the communes of early
Christians, obviously, they did not hope that love will have generated
abundance, and therefore they
were applying the opposite approach: they were beginning with obligatory
socialization of property - but
this is already more similar to second point of view - the communist
one.
2. G. Ziuganov isn't tired of repeating that communists really carry
out the Christian ideals. But it is a lie.
As far back as 100 years ago the Christian philosopher V. S. Soloviov
had noticed: «Though communists
by their negative attitude to the property are similar to early Christians,
but there is an essential distinction: Christians called upon to give
your property, while communists incite to take away the property
belonging to others». Thus, if Christians thought love will
cause equality, and the equality will create
abundance - then communists consider, no, it is necessary to begin
from establishment - by violence -
the property equality, it will cause abundance, and the abundance already
will create love and harmony
in a society.
However in practice with communists also everything is being turned
out the wrong way round, the
communism becomes inevitably as rigid, «totalitarian» regime - that
is to say holding under the control
ALL parties of life of a man. Because the establishment of property
equality, as the theorists of
communism speak, is being prevented by «the nature of a man», by his
egoism. Therefore the whole
system of measures is necessary, the strategy is necessary in order
to not leave the slightest loop-hole
for egoism, to not allow him to penetrate in a communist society and
to pervert it, to destroy it from
within - as it had turned out, for example, at easing the Stalin regime
since the Khruschev period. Firstly,
it is necessary, they speak, to destroy a private property, and whenever
possible, any property in general,
to retain in the property of the citizens only a toothbrush, hairbrush
etc. The very first states - empires of
Atzteks, Inks, Assyrians, early Egypt - were constructed on the principle
of communism, there was no
private property, as the academician Igor Shafarevich writes in the
book «Socialism». Everything
belonged to pharaoh, that is to say to a state9. (FOOTNOTE
9: About life in Egyptian slavery see also
in the Bible (Exodus 5, 4-21).). The population was divided
into brigades. A foreman (an overseer) was
receiving in a state warehouse the order on work, tools, materials
and the day-time livelihood for a
brigade; finished products were being given back to a state warehouse
again. At XX century the
«development along a spiral» has resulted approximately in the same
point: Lenin, for the sake of property equality, has offered to establish
equality of the salaries for equal number of hours of any work, it is
unimportant of what work (see at his book «The State and the Revolution»).
Also so-called «the war communism» was being considered by him as a convenient
occasion to speed up carrying out the Marxism-Pharaohism system of production
and distribution up to the cancellation of money in general.
Thus, communist regime, so to speak, «solves» material problems by
an establishment of compulsory
equality. As a poet has told: «Their equality is slavery: All of them
are slaves - thus nobody is resented».
So that nobody stand out, it would be a good thing to dress all the
people - men and women - in dark
blue uniform as it was in China at Mao Tze-dung, to give to everyone
by 9 sq. ì of a living-space. In a Vysotsky song it is mentioned «the corridor
system - there is only one lavatory for 38 families». Such the
houses were really under construction at the 1920-s for the future
society of completely-communism. A
kitchen is necessary for no family - everyone eats in a communalrestaurant.
For washing there are the
public laundries. Thus woman is free of the «home slavery». But it
is better to liquidate family as a public
institute in general. Children are raised and educated by the state.
And all this - to break the people of
«the own», of property, that is to say, of inequality10.
FOOTNOTE 10: Hitler had some plans too: after a military victory
to finish construction of
totalitarian socialism - for the benefit of the state to take away
the property of large capitalists -
as the beginning. Communists began from destruction of «superfluous»
classes and then has
passed, under Stalin, to destruction of the objectionable peoples.
Hitler had a swastika on his red
banner instead of a sickle and hammer, he began, on the contrary,
with the «superfluous» peoples,
and then planned to finish with classes too. In it all difference
is between the communist socialism
and the national-socialism.
Besides, the communist revolution should be global, «world» - that is
to say the communism should be
entered at once in all the world11(FOOTNOTE 11: Even
If the world besides will be divided in hostile blocks of the communist
states, as it is described in the fantastic George Orwell's novel «1984».
But also besides Orwell's prophecies, we remember, how Stalin’s
USSR and Tito’s Yugoslavia were
at enmity. Also the communist «brothers» China and Vietnam with
each other even made war),
otherwise the states based on economic freedom and, it means, with
more effective economics, will
destroy the communist countries. In general, the resourceful, independent
people are more ingenious,
stronger than the passive, broken of initiative «the small screws»
who got used that all parties of their life
and activity are determined by their leaders. For this reason the states
of Atzteks, Inks, Assyrians,
pharaohs had perished. Till now it wasn't a success to have constructed
the communism in the separate
country, or in group («camp») of countries just because the world just
now is great, is divided, is diverse
(is not unified) and consequently as whole is unguided. However the
technical progress gradually extends
hands and levers of a state, the world is turned out as though more
compact, more controlled, and the communism, that is to say, global totalitarianism,
becomes as the quite possible future of mankind. Now,
at the end of XX century liberal-capitalist regime, as more effective,
has ensured fast growth and has
won a competition with communism. For the present it has won. An unskilful
but strong swimmer at the
expense of vigorous struggle can forge ahead but he eventually spends
energy and goes down, while
weak one can long lay on water without moving in general. Also the
capitalism, winning only by constant
growth, by this growth digs a grave for itself, lops off the bough
on which it sits. You see, in the limited
resource space of Globe the infinite growth is impossible, therefore,
with achievement of «the limits of
growth», stagnation of economy and increase because of it of all sorts
of disasters will again open a gate
for «the Second Advent» of communism.
3. The socialist point of view believes it is unnecessary and sheer
harmfully - completely to destroy a
property inequality (as it lowers diligence and production efficiency).
Besides, it is impossible, the
privileged class remains after revolution all the same . Enough if
there will not be the too rich and too
poor. Let's take away, by surtaxes, «the surpluses» from the rich and
we shall give it to the poor - and all
will be O.K. This point of view now dominates in Europe, though lately
disappointment in the «social»
state is being formed, as the income taxation undermines economy and
labor morals, but an idea to
have canceled the income taxes by replacing these with ecological taxes
- in any way is not gone into the socialiists heads, because the income
taxation is the Alpha and Omega of the socialist ideology.
4. Liberal-capitalist point of view12 (FOOTNOTE 12: In
the USA is another terminology. There the
fourth point of view is named «conservative» but a word «a liberal»
is almost abusive and approximately corresponds with a word «a socialist»)
fairly
specifies that the forced overstating of
the salaries under pressure of trade unions also other socialist «equalizing»
make lower the interest in
work and the efficiency of economy. In European «social» states the
economy grows poorly and the unemployment is high because of outflow of
the capital into the Asian countries where the low salary,
almost there are not expenses of the state for social security and
consequently the income taxes are less.
It should not oppress the rich men by the taxes because, as speak,
they invest the money in expansion of production or spend it and in any
case thus they give work to poor ones. The taxes should be lowered -
then more money will remain with the people for buying. And if the
purchasing capacity of the population
will increase - then the production will increase too. Hence the earnings
will increase, therefore buying
will increase any more, production will increase again - and so up
to infinity. But generally, it is necessary
to work even more, to turn even promptly - then, maybe, after many
exactions you will nevertheless have
a large part of the earned, and you will cease to be poor.
The inaccuracy of this theory is obvious: though the reduction of the
taxes will increase the budget of the
ordinary buyers but so will reduce the state budget, which in the final
account is being spent for buying too.
It turns out some money was added to private sector but the same money
will be taken away from state
sector. By the way, from 1930-s till the middle of the 1970-s there
was in fashion the opposite theory -
Keins's theory: let a state - even by printing money - to spend more
and more (for construction of roads,
for example), creating thus workplaces. Then people will have money,
the sale of the goods will increase,
hence the production will increase, thus the incomes will be increased
again etc. up to infinity.
In these theories the only thing is correct: if suddenly by that or
another way it is possible to increase
production, it temporarily weakens material problems. It turns out,
that while the economy grows, the
people do not want to change anything. Why? It’s all right now. When
the recession comes, they can't
think about changes, all efforts of thought are directed to this: how
to survive and to renew the growth -
today a situation in Russia is the such.
A propagandist of the liberal-capitalist point of view the philosopher
Boris Paramonov says: «In the
countries, where there is freedom - there is bread too». No, quite
the reverse: for the present there is
bread - there is freedom too. There will not be bread (when the today’s
economic boom will have
terminated) - then there will not be freedom too. During XX century
it was happened more than once.
The modern liberals do not understand it. A frightened crow is afraid
even of a bush. By flinching from
the horrors of the totalitarian «Utopias» of XX century13(
FOOTNOTE 13: Just not communist
socialism but liberalism had turned out to be the Utopia in Russia)
they run to another extreme.
They consider that not only any «noosphere» is unnecessary, but also,
in general, a government the
better, the less it is ruling. They say, the people will pull a blanket
everyone on themselves, and thus
everything will be arranged automatically. However other philosopher
- Spaniard Ortega y Gasset wrote
in the book «The Revolt of Masses»: «A Civilization is not natural,
does not keep itself, it is ARTIFICIAL
and requires art and skill. A least oversight - and the all around
will vanish in a moment. At the
developing the civilization becomes more complex and more intricate.
And there are less and less people
whose mind rises to these problems... For the mass, which has been
left to the own arbitrariness,
either they are the ordinary people or the nobility, the thirst
of life invariably results in
destruction of the bases of life... The main question is what
are the radical defects of the modern
European culture. It would be required to develop in all completeness
the concept of human existence».
5. And now the noospheric point of view specifies that professed by
liberal capitalism (as by its «ordinary people», public, as by the «nobility»,
the intellectual establishment) and named as «development» the infinite
growth in the limited space of Globe is madness resulting in the catastrophe.
And preliminary warning
disasters on this way to the ruin are the neediness, famine, the illnesses,
violence, wars, dictatorships and
the destruction of environment - redoubled in ours, apparently, such
progressive XX century. Besides the noospheric point of view, all other
theories and any reasoning about «the decision of problems of a
human» are unscientific, as they «overlook» - but actually do not wish
to see a phenomenon, dynamics and
size of a population - as the reason, but not only as a consequence
of the social, economic, political or historical phenomena. The sole way
to relieve mankind of disasters named above - it is the reasonable management
with a population number, counteraction to its spontaneous growth. It is
specific that for
reduction of pressure of mankind on nature and on itself the
today's situation demands to decrease the population 10 times - the ecologists
speak thus (see, for example, in «The Bulletin of a Russian Academy
of sciences», v.64, No 9, 1994, page 811 the article «Onward to nature»
by M. E. Vinogradov, G. E. Mikhailovsky and A. S. Monin).
In the reasonings of journalists, politicians and economists about «the
reasons of riches of the peoples»
there is widespread an unscientific, narrow-minded justification of
escalating
of production: as if it
provides increase of a level of life. But in reality, the steady increase
of a level of life is a consequence of
not an OPPORTUNITIES to raise a level of life at increase of production,
but it is a consequence of NECESSITY to raise a level of life of the workers
according to complication of their work14
(FOOTNOTE 14: Erich Fromm Is mistaken when he writes: «Production
and consumption have
grown, whereas working hours was reduced, and the children's work
is largely abolished. This
choice was dictated not by technical necessity; it has grown out
of political struggle and change
in the social approaches»). The reproduction of the qualified
labor power is more expensive than
unskilled one. It is necessary to take into account not only the expenses
on direct training but also even
large expenses on general cultural-intellectual development which is
necessary
too. But it can be
achieved by creation of appropriate cultural-household conditions.
The education, trips expanding an
outlook, set of the books, color TV sets, video recorders, computers
and other home appliances,
spacious houses, leisure, hobby - all these are very expensive but
are
necessary for intellectual-technical development of a man of the «technotronic»
civilization, that is to say again for manufacturing, but it is
not because of the «excessive aspiration to the comfort» as some philosophers
and publicists assert.
Because if the civilization would not be «techotronic», it could not
support the present huge population.
However for publicists forming public opinion, it is more favorable
to appear before the people as
moralists, instead of «misanthropist-malthusists», therefore they assert
that the ecological crisis is
ostensibly «a payment for comfort», and never will tell the truth:
that it is a payment for a huge population
number though it's easily to understand it.
The increasing of the life level that has been not justified by above-named
necessity
but caused only by
gain of production, is resulted only by the increase of number of children
in families. And this gain of a
population in due course «gobbles up» the gain of production, and the
level of life is falling again. We see
it during all history of mankind (see a diagram in the first chapter):
the enormous escalating of production
as a result of scientific and technical progress of last centuries
- has resulted not in abundance but ;
demographic explosion.
So maybe, it is time to stop this race between growth of production
and growth of the population - it
very much like the pursuit by a kitten of its own tail. The difference
only is that a kitten is playing but the
chiefs of mankind are engaged in it seriously. By taking into account
that we live on the limited surface
of Globe and that the resources of the Earth are finite, isn't it time
to select other strategy for
achievement of abundance: by stimulating reduction of birth-rate to
promote the decrease of a
population?
Another also widespread unscientific notion is that if a country has
a «favorable» climate, «fertile»
grounds, «is rich» by minerals - such a country shall thrive (but if
it lives in misery - it is indispensable
because of any malicious forces). But if a country is northern, with
«poor grounds», and there is no coal, petroleum, apatite and ores - such
a country shall be poor. However look at a card of density of the
population of the Earth and you will see the «rich» lands become more
populated - for example, valley of
the Nile either delta of the Ganges, or the valleys of China rivers
- and level of life there therefore ;
becomes low despite of «riches» of these lands. But we see the high
life standard in the technically
advanced countries, for example, in Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, -
but there are no particular natural
riches. Thus, the level of life depends not on opportunities
ostensibly given by «riches» of natural
resources and volume of production, but in long prospect depends only
on the technological level.
Because the high technological level necessarily requires the qualified
and that is why the high-paid
population. If this necessity of increase of the life standard would
not exist, the gain of a population in
accuracy would correspond to a gain of production of the vital boons,
and the life standard therefore
would not be risen.
Manufacture includes four elements: labor, knowledge, instruments of
manufacture and resources. At the
times of the handicraft manufacturing, the most important and expensive
element was knowledge (skill)
of a craftsman. At the times of manufactories the imported resources
and, hence, trade capital had
become the main. When the manufacture by machinery had been arisen,
the machinery, that is to say the industrial capital had become the main
also the most expensive element. And soviet communists thinking
in limits of «Capital» - the books of a hundred years old, was taking
out, already presently, from defeated Germany, basically, machinery, but
the more far-seeing Americans - was taking out the German experts.
Indeed, in our «post-industrial» time the main and the most expensive
element of manufacture is qualified
labor, that is to say the set of two elements: labors and knowledge.
Just this industrial qualification of the population, requiring
a high level of life, is the first-cause of occurrence just presently,
at an epoch of the «Scientific and Technical Revolution», of the high,
on old standards, level of life of mass - but not at all
the increased volume of production, as everybody considers. The volume
of production was also being increased before, however the former revolutions
in manufacture - occurrence of the cattle-breeding,
agriculture etc. - had not resulted in abundance, the STR as such will
not result in the abundance.
Now the new epoch comes nearer - when, with an exhaustion of natural
resources, just resources -
from petroleum and metals up to clear water, air and, simply, the land
surface - will become the most
important and expensive element of production. It is unreasonable to
resist to inevitable and to restrain
a rise in prices on resources, conducing to squandering and just by
intensifying the future shortage of
resources. On the contrary, expecting their exhaustion, it is necessary
to save these already now, that is
to say it is necessary by the ecological taxes intentionally considerably
to raise the prices of production
of the polluting substances and of resources extraction. Unlike a spontaneous
rise in prices, this artificial
increase of the prices will be quite painless, compensated, because
will allow simultaneously by the same
sum as a whole in the country to reduce the taxes from the profit and
from earnings. The reduction of the
income taxation not only will give the compensation but will have an
salutary effect for economy and
morals. But if to be floating with current and to wait for a spontaneous
rise in price of resources, then
to compensate it there will be by nothing, the economic and political
catastrophe of mankind can
become inevitable.
A similar situation arises with a population number too. Anyhow the
number of mankind should be
coordinated with an opportunities of the planet. It would be better,
by reducing the birth-rate,
consciously to reduce the population number, than, exhausting resources
of a planet, to risk extinction
both degeneration of mankind and all the biosphere as a result of the
anthropogeneous ecological
catastrophe. Mankind is able to control computers, space ships and
nuclear reactors but if they aren't
able or don't want to control their own number, they will destroy a
biosphere and will destroy
themselves.
However the «humanist» establishment (and even the «have turned green»
part of them) avoids to go
deep into this theme and consequently is unable reasonably to plan
the future. They do a dubious
service to mankind when they are being guided in the policy by a populist
principle «happiness of a
man» that is actually the principle «after us even if the floodwaters
will come». A known economist
L. I. Piyasheva has written to me: «I have overfed with the marxist
globalism and I prefer to care not
about «a planet as a whole» and «ecology on a planet», but about today's
«a man of no importance»,
about satiety of a family, children, and at the best, «the country».
There's the «new thinking» for you! It
is the old thinking - old like the world, like the animals world.
\.
Thus the self-preservations instinct
Does not save us but kills. (Eugene Yevtushenko)
.
In Africa the scientists-ethologists were observing behavior of monkeys.
There a monkey-baby has
fallen from a tree and has broken the hand. The baby shouts from a
pain, the mother pick up him and
presses him to her heart. Because of it he is in more pain, he is crying,
mother again presses him even
stronger, her instinct is such. As a result the hand is constantly
injured, does not heal, and the baby
perishes. Equally the instinct let down our humanists, when the matter
concerns a population number
or growth of production, thus they will really have driven the mankind
to destruction!
The opponents of the Darwin's evolutionary theory especially are irritated
with his statement that a
man had descended from animals. But exactly they, these opponents,
see a man exclusively like an
animal - who eats, drinks, «pursues of happiness» - easier speaking,
to pleasures. This is a view of a
man of the religion of humanism and of the present humanistic Christianity.
Indeed, that the purpose,
the sense of life is not «To execute a will of Sender» as it is written
in Gospels but the purpose is
happiness - it is considered as an axiom and silently is put in a basis
of all discourses by everybody,
even by the ones who name themselves Christians. Another - originally
Christian method of approach
to a man is based on a recognition of the human essence not in his
biological and psychological
requirements but in his mind - that animals have not. Exactly it is
meant by words of Bible «a man is
created as an image and a similarity of God», you see, God is a pure
Mind, Logos, as it is written in
the same Bible.
But does a man use the mind given to him and how does he use? On that
score Sigmund Freud is
extremely pessimistic: «People are so a little accessible to voice
of mind, their impulsive wishes
dominate them completely». Is it correct? Actually it is correct only
that a man during of one million
years is living under leadership of instincts and emotions, and his
mind - and also all our science! -
are only a support, only a tool of achievement of the purposes, which
an instinct puts. When
psychology presses logic, it isn't the logic any more. Certainly I
don't talk about transforming a man
into an angel, but if then mankind will be guided in their life by
the short-sight, by its nature, instincts and emotions and will not be
capable to limit themselves in number (only it is necessary!), they are
not just
doomed that their number - like number of animals - will be still adjusted
by famine, wars and illnesses,
but it is worse, the mankind is doomed to degeneration and destruction.
Because the scales of human
disasters - as distinct from the sufferings of animals - are proportional
to forces which aman manipulates - frequently unskilfully or short-sightly,
or irresponsibly, but now the forces in hands of the man are huge
and are increasing. The same S. Freud wrote: «It is necessary to realize
in a however large measure the
building of a civilization is based on a principle of a refusal from
instinctive inclinations... Let sometime
the intellect - scientific thought, mind - will have managed to establish
their dictatorship in psychological
life of the people, this is our hottest desire» (Roger Dadoune, «Freud»).
It is accepted - even among the philosophers - to blame for disasters
of mankind the progress, science
and rationalism. But everything is quite the reverse. Why, for example,
even the most courageous
statement of Roman Club had been softly and evasively headed as «Limits
of growth» - it would be more correctly to head it as «Suicide by growth».
The softened warning sheerly had not touched. The public
had thought: «Well, there will be no growth - we shall do without it,
but for now it is, it is necessary to
use». A key attribute of the establishment is fine appearance.
As Christ spoke about the that time
establishment: «A Pharisee-hypocrite separating of a mosquito but absorbing
of a camel». The people
belonging to the establishment or aspiring to enter into it, trying
to look fine, are evasive, are cautious in
their behavior and statements. Being afraid to be considered as «malthusists»,
they dare to condemn «the excessive growth of an industry» and «the excessive
growth of the population» only. As though the non-excessive, «ordinary»
growth will not result eventually the same volume of production and the
same population number. To speak and to write that not the growth, but
the population number is excessive,
it is considered as indecent, inhumane even among the scientists. But
where there is taboo - there is the self-blinding, there isn’t true science,
there isn’t true rationality. Thus, not a science, not a rationalism are
guilty in present and future disasters of mankind but just the absence
of a true science, of true rationality.
And if the demographers, afraid or not able to think globally, name
the reduction of population number
or even only the absence of a gain of the population as «an adverse
demographic situation» and are
horrified of «the aging of the population» owing to low birth-rate15(FOOTNOTE
15: If western
countries are afraid that they will be not able to support growing
number of their old men, why
everyone speak, that these countries are «rich»? And how it is possible
to speak that because
of «of aging of the population» there will be a lack of a labor
power, if in these countries there
is considerable unemployment?), the teachers assert that for
good upbringing there should be three
children in family instead of one, the economists for the lentil soup
of momentary benefit are ready to
expose the country to invasion of immigrants, they require the further
growth of the population - as they
need the more and more labor power for escalating the production to
feed the same increasing
population16 (FOOTNOTE 16: Our economists and demographers
are literally crazy about «development» and «development» of resources.
In the overpopulated countries the resources
«are being developed» - that is to say the nature is being destroyed
- because it is necessary to
feed the rapidly increasing population. But in our country the population
is being decreased
however the economists and demographers all the same call for «to
develop» the resources of
Far East and for this purpose offer to let the Chinese in. And the
businessmen and officials,
making profit on manufacture and export of resources, certainly,
make a tribune by such
«scientist». By the way, here is also a underlying reason of the
agiotage about so-called
«globalization»), and patriots with nationalists do not agree
to stop growth of the population while
other peoples will not stop the growth, - to them all we should say:
«That's all! It is impossible! You
must solve your problems by other ways, an Ecological Imperstive
forbids growth of the population!».
And, I add, moreover: an Ecological Imperative requires reduction of
a population number because the ecological crisis going deeper and deeper
indicates the population are excessive.
However strange it is, this elementary logic meets with furious resistan.
For example, in a newspaper
«The St.-Petersburg Vedomosti» from 7.4.93 a doctor of biological sciences
V. B. Sapunov in the
article «Do not hurry to say farewell to Eden» without the slightest
proof asserts that «any limits of growth
do not exist» - and at once begins to prove the opposite: that the
growth of the population will not continue infinitely because in general
any process cannot continue infinitely. He adduces a current «proof»: the
demographers, he says, have noticed a long time ago that with increase
either of a level of life or a
level of education in any country the birth rate in this country is
decreasing. The unreasonable conclusion
from here is made that erudition of the parents automatically cause
the small family - two children in a
family on the average. And thus it is unnecessary to do anything for
reduction of birth-rate, because at
the middle of XXI century the population number automatically will
been established such, that, ostensibly, should be on the Earth - about
10-15 billions.
However we see that the ecological crisis continues to go deeper, despite
of decrease of the birth-rate
in some countries - obviously the insufficient decrease. Moreover the
newest statistics shows that in the developing countries the rates of decrease
of birth rate predicted at one time by demographers are not
achieved. The point is that at this period on the basis of achievements
of agricultural genetics there had
taken place so-called «green revolution», the other positive changes
had happened also - these had
spurred the growth of the population again.
It is necessary to understand clearly that the automatic reduction of
birth-rate can occur only as a result
of disasters and, in general, as a result of insufficient satisfaction
of needs. If the increased necessary
needs of a man of the «technotronic» civilization, about those it was
stated above, would been satisfied
better, nothing would prevent to have 4-6 children in the families
with high education too.
There are two reasons of the ecological crisis: the incorrectly directed
stimuli in economy and incorrectly directed stimuli in demographic policy.
Both here and there stimuli are directed to growth but nobody
wants openly and directly to say that this direction is incorrect.
For example, G. S. Khozin in the book
«The global problems of modernity» (M. 1982, p.152, 153) writes: «Western
scientists all more often
expresses an opinion about necessity not only ecologization of world
outlook but also reconsideration of economy, policy and sociology in view
of qualitative changes in interaction of a community and nature.
They see the reason of ecological problems in growth of quantitative
parameters (population number,
volumes of production, consumption of energy, mineral and biological
resources, urbanization paces
etc.)». And as always, the thought is not gone beyond similar general
phrases . «Reconsider economy,
policy and sociology». How to reconsider? To stop the growth? You see,
they don't tell specificly!
It seems, from the citation follows: the reason of disasters is the
growth, stop the growth - and the
problem will be solved. But the reason is not the taking place growth,
but the growth, that took place.
That is to say the reason isn’t that these amounts grow exponentially,
linearly, by a S-figurative curve
or somehow else. Also the reason isn't that these grow quickly. And
isn’t that these grow in general.
The reason is that these have grown and are great already. The biosphere
is overburdened and
collapses already irrespective of whether these grow further.
A dispute about details is not meaningful. The journalists like to show
the «objectivity» and «for the
balance» to adduce the opposite opinions. Oh, how it is interesting:
some scientists speak something,
the others speak the absolutely another. Someone speaks, that in reality
the climate don't grow warmer
or grow warmer - but not because of the human activity but because
of fluctuations of activity of the
Sun. Someone else says that the amount of carbonic acid in an atmosphere
actually does not increase,
the ozone holes do not grow, the stocks of ores do not run out, and
also the previous prophecies about
close catastrophe have not come true. However all these objections
are not serious. Because the main
thing is indisputable: it is impossible to increase pressure on a nature
without the end.
Thus the approaching global catastrophe is anthropogeneous. That is
to say the biosphere is degrading
as a result of the mankind economic activity, that had become the excessive
factor on a planet. But the
economic activity of the people is ruled by stimuli. Hence, a key to
the decision of ecological problems
is the creation of strong stimuli by legislators - for, firstly,
to make economic activity more rational and, secondly, to reduce volume
of this activity - which really can decrease only at reduction of the population
number. And also it is necessary to emphasize that here I am being addressed
not to legislators but to
the public - because we know on experience that political as
well as other establishment tries to
bypass, «to overlook» really sharp questions and begins to do something
only under pressing of a public,
voters or when a disaster will already come17.
FOOTNOTE 17: About the psychology of establishment, about their aspiration
to not see and
in every possible way to cover the attributes of approaching disaster,
for example, the following
history testifies. At the 30-s there was a book of an American military
expert about inevitability
of war with Japan, about what the war will begin exactly with an
attack on Pearl-Harbor and in
detail - why and how Japan will make it all. But both to his references
round the departments,
and thereupon also to this book nobody in America has found for
itself favourable to pay
attention - there's a clever chap, we ourselves are clever. But
in Japan - had paid attention and
had made everything just like was written there.
Chapter 3. From crisis to catastrophe: the madness of growth is continuing.
I in any way can not understand why we should participate in global
experiment for definition of amount of the people which can be supported
by the Earth? You see, this experiment will be inevitably finished with
catastrophe!
(Paul Ehrlich, an ecologist)
Really nobody bears and feels the responsibility for a condition of the
world,
and probably it is one of the reasons why affairs in the world are in a
worse
and worse. Wholly all planet represents thus a typical example that Gerret
Harden has named as a tragedy of public property.
(Aurelio Peccei «Human qualities»)
The today's world looks like an express train rushing forward in which
there
is not an operator, and all the passengers sit against a course of the
train.
Perhaps only the science fiction writers are looking not backwards but
onward during of almost a century .
(Damon Night, a science fiction writer)
Liberals and democrats of all countries in the wake of Fukuyama (author
of «The End of History»)
ingenuously believe that the liberal capitalism finally has defeated
the opponents and now the mankind is
for sure going toward the bright future. They forget that at the end
of XIX century everybody were also
sure in soon approach of era of a civilization and peace and nobody
foresaw of horrors of the First and
the Second world wars. Also nobody foresaw of horrors of the Stalin
and the Hitler regimes. Solzhenitsin
writes: if Chekhov's intellectuals could foresee that in Russia of
XX century there will be the investigating
by torture, all of them would get into a lunatics asylum. And though
some people foresaw something, but
if the reasons of disasters - wars, revolutions, - have not been understood,
it will be not possible also to
finish with these.
Today's western democracy is kept by economic boom which really cannot
be eternal. What may
await mankind on a way of economic and demographic growth beautifully
named as the «health of
economy», «progress» and «development»?
It is not known that will take place earlier: the exhaustion of resources
and what resources precisely -
or destruction of environment, and what form this destruction will
assume, and whether some negative
factors will coincide at once. But by any way on reaching «the limits
of growth» the present boom will
be terminated, the economy will go downwards, poverty, famine, the
illnesses, criminality, moral
degeneration, interracial, international and political collisions of
interests, violence, wars - will be
amplified, and at last on the Earth it can be established the cruel
totalitarian regime like described by
George Orwell in the book «1984»18(FOOTNOTE 18: Unaccidentally
the science-fiction writers -
always depict the «cosmic civilizations» as totalitarian ones .
They and their readers feel where
mankind is going). By a little paraphrasing of Chaadayev, it
is possible to tell: «Totalitarianism will win
not because it is right but because its opponents are mistaken». Contrary
to the notions of a philosopher
Boris Paramonov as if «a middle class inevitably creates democracy»,
in the conditions of such crisis any
middle class will not be able and will not want to save the freedom
and democracy from crash. By
saying by Paramonov’s words, «it is time to get rid of this ideological
illusion», at least by remembering
that the similar crash already has happened at the time of economic
crisis in Germany at 1933. The point
is that unlike the liberal and democratic states the global totalitarianism
has in the arsenal some effective
ways of management, solving of problems and «putting things in order».
It just closes the information and destroys the superfluous population,
liquidating the whole nations and classes. It can have starved 6
millions people by an artificial caused famine - but the world will
not have noticed it at all. It can have
poisoned with radiation the whole region - but the people will quietly
come out on celebration
demonstration under a radioactive rain because they will know nothing.
Then will be carried out a hidden
dream of one of the ideologists of French atomic engineering, who has
blurted it out: «When you are
going to drain a bog, it is absolutely unessential to warn frogs about
it». About the same theme Churchill
has told once: «Soviet people are the happiest ones of all over the
world: they do not even suspect how
badly they live». Indeed it already will be «the end of History» -
because, having become global,
totalitarianism will become eternal. Totalitarianism in general
is such that it is easy for tasting but then
it is very difficult to spit it out . But the main thing is that the
global totalitarianism never will have lost
a competition to the free world as recently «the camp of socialism»
has lost. Because there will not be
any more free world beside it, it will be impossible to compare it
with anything else.
Alexander Zinoviev in the book «Russian destiny, the confession of a
renegade» writes: «The Second
world war... had shown, that communist social regime is capable to
stand difficulties and catastrophes
of epochal and global scale. It was born as a result of the First world
war as a consequence of a
catastrophic situation of Russia and as a means of overcoming of this
situation. Also after the revolution,
at time of the Second world war and at the following years after the
war the regime had proved with hundred-per-cent evidence, that it is a
social regime as though specially adapted for self-preservation
of a country in conditions of grandiose difficulties and for overcoming
these. At these years it had
become obviously too, that this social regime is not capable successfully
to compete with capitalist
regime in a sphere of economy and to raise a vital standard of the
population above that in the countries
of West. But this indisputable circumstance not at all shake the first
one, namely the amazing ability
of the communist countries to survive in conditions, inconceivable
for West. And West should in any
case take into consideration this circumstance. By flow of words hiding
it, it is possible to obscure the consciousness of people. But by words
it is impossible to persuade the history to evolve in that
direction you would like».
Thus a threat of establishing of the global and eternal totalitarianism
is real - we see the resources of
a planet are being exhausted, the biosphere is overburdened and are
collapsing, the ecological,
economic, and owing to them the political catastrophe can come at the
nearest historical time. Even
without the most intricate global computer-models and scientific monitoring
it is possible to understand
that the growth in limited space, the growth, that is not restrained
by reason but furthermore is specially
spurred, inevitably results in destruction (the growth but not «the
progress» - as the publicists speak, they
mix everything up). It is testified by the ruins of the lost civilizations
or, for example, the history of an
island of Easter already mentioned by me at the end of the first chapter.
But the publicists keep telling us
as if the ancient peoples planned everything and lived happily in harmony
with the nature. As speak, they
«took from a nature only that is necessary for life». As though not
a man has destroyed mammoths, and
now in Brazil, in Africa, on Madagascar, on Borneo, on Philippines
the nature is being destroyed not
because the grown local population just needs eating. Formerly some
civilizations were perishing but the
other ones were remaining. Now the civilization has become global.
Therefore now there is a threat for
all Earth to become a huge «island of Easter».
An academician I. S. Shklovsky, seeing probably first of all the economic
aspect of the triple catastrophe threatening the mankind - ecological,
economic and political - wrote: «Collapse is being eliminated not by
a stop of growth but by the reasonable management of the investments
of the capital. For this purpose,
however, it is necessary to turn the large part of these investments
for struggle against pollution, on
restoration of resources and liquidation of erosion of cultivated ground.
As yet it is not clear how to do
It» («Universe, life, intellect », 1987, page 283).
How to make it, how to turn the investments of capital for conservation
of environment - I shall show in
the latter chapters of this article when the talk will be about replacement
of the income taxation with
ecological one. I shall try also to prove that neither it, nor any
other achievement of progress - technical
or organizational - eliminate the threat of catastrophe - just the
growth should be stopped and even
reversed backwards. About it an academician P. L. Kapitsa wrote too:
«The task, that is before people is
how painlessly to stop this growth, that is to say not by death from
famine as it begins to take place now.
It is well known that now this problem is widely being discussed but
universally recognized ways for its
solving are not found as yet» («Experiment, theory, practice», M. 1987,
page 429).
But the ways for its solving, recognized from the point of view of the
prevailing short-sighted humanistic
egoism will not be found.It is necessary to change just «the universally
recognized» notions and criteria.
However the blind leaders of mankind - its spiritual, political and
scientific establishment, not wishing to
be reputed for the «malthusists» and being under thumb of the momentary
«interests of the people», still
profess the absurd and mad idea of growth. The Roman Club in the sensational
report «Limits of
growth» had come out with the objections but had been hissed and had
reversed, had suppressed this
theme. The president of Roman Club Aurelio Peccei only limply has reproved
not known whom, having
said: «On growth set hopes every time when at hand there are no other
means of treatment of illnesses
of society. The growth has turned into a certain supermedicine».
So mankind continues to sweat over the decision of economic, ecological
and political problems, hoping
for the further growth instead of to stop and to turn backwards the
growth of economy and population -
you see, it is just the excessively evolved economy and population
create economic, ecological and
political problems.
Here professor Helbrate (on BBC) speaks: «Mankind needs to think very
much seriously about the
problem of China. I repeat: this is a world problem. Because there
are not enough resources for a quarter
of mankind. The resources in China per head of the population do not
reach even a half of the average
world norm. Therefore, if China wants to achieve the standard of well-being
even of the average
developed countries, China will need several planets. The question
is that, probably, it is necessary to
think not only of development of engineering and technology but to
ponder about a new philosophy of development. Because it is impossible
to be aggressively on offensive against nature. We should ponder
about it according to old Konfucianism tradition: a Konfucian should
today think about what people will
think tomorrow».
Prof. Helbrate so has got confused with a word «development» (not development
but the growth is an
offensive against a nature) that he isn't capable to think up anything
and therefore he offers to think to
mankind. This «thought stupor» of the intellectual establishment, «the
Konfucians», by the prof. Helbrate’s
words, has the latent underlying reason in fear, in unwillingness to
think of a «delicate» problem. The point
is that the today's establishment are not Konfucians devoted only to
the truth but the populists-humanists
afraid even mentally to contradict with short-sighted «interests of
the people». As Christ spoke, «a good shepherd lays his life for sheep.
But a hireling, to which sheep are not belong, sees a coming wolf and
leaves the sheep, and runs because he is a hireling and not take care
of the sheep»19. Obscuring the
distinction of the qualitative, accumulative, healthy progress
and the quantitative, gobbling up, cancerous
growth by the using of a hazy word «development», Prof.
Helbrate and his intellectuals-Konfucians
confuse itself and the others, safely for itself they leave thus the
inevitably unpopular decision of a
problem - and call upon other people «to ponder over».
FOOTNOTE 19: I am frequently reproached with sharpness, indelicacy.
But I remind that for
example, Christ words given above he had told not about any rascals,
but about Pharisees, which
were considered as the intellect, honor and conscience of the epoch.
This is really misfortune of the notorious «development» that in parallel
with progress there is the usual quantitative growth which brings a large
part of achievement of progress down to nothing and now
threatens already in the close future to have driven the biosphere
to final catastrophe.
A picture of the progress-growth can be shown approximately so:
At primitive times, 10 thousands years back on 1 sq. kilometer there
was 1 man, on the average. Not
because then the people ostensibly «had not time to multiply». During
a hundred thousands years of
existence of Homo sapiens they quite would be in time20,
but the then level of productive forces could
not support the more numerous population. The productive forces then
were such: a head of a family in
the morning was leaving for hunt and in the evening was coming back
bringing for the family, for
example, a partridge.
FOOTNOTE 20: It is easy to count up by a calculator, that when the
population growth of
1,35 % per one year - it is 3 children per a family, there is such
the growth in the world now - the simultaneously living posterity of only
one conjugal couple (for example, Adam and Eva) can has reached 1 billion
people for 1500 years only.
Now on 1 sq. km there are 100 men. Someone extracts ore of iron or uranium,
someone melts metal,
others make machines and nuclear reactors for by these again to extract
ore, to transport metal, to make computers, telephones, telefaxes, cables,
lifts, cars, tankers, tractors, automobiles, fertilizers, insecticides,
for to plough ground, to gather in a harvest - to have a forage for
poultry farm. For all its also it is
necessary: management, marketing, advertising, trade, banks, taxes,
political parties, lawyers, police,
science, universities, laboratories. All 100 men are busy all the day.
At last, in the evening these 100
men buy in shops 100 chickens in cellophane and bring for a family
again one hen as it was 10 thousands
years back. But now a man has become the slave or hostage of machines,
nuclear reactors, chemical manufactures and factory chimneys. He any more
can't do without these because without these it is
impossible to support life of the huge population. Thus, contrary to
the statements of the fashionable philosophers, not «machine», not «technology»
makes slavery21 but reproduction which is not adjusted
by mind.
FOOTNOTE 21: For Example, the philosopher Boris Paramonov asserts:
«An attempt of the technological alteration, the total technological expansion
is guilty. A machine in hands of a man
has been maddened, it has crucified a flesh of existence, has required
the human sacrifices.
Technology as ideology is the base of modern hell of XX century».
Ecology is not «a science about pollution» as many of people consider
it. The pollution of environment
with specificly those or other substances is just a sanitary, technical
problem. The thought rises to a level
of the ecology when it is realized that any sanitary and technical
measures, any philosophy and practice of enthusiasts of «life in harmony
with a nature» not give and cannot give the decisions. To make machines
or reactors more safe and to clear the smoky gases technically it is quite
possible but for it there is not
enough money - just it is the problem. That is to say not the technology,
not «the progress» are guilty in the pollution but, first of all, the necessity
«to feed people».
Thus, on a question of a certain philosopher «Why is the progress?»
the answer is: our scientific and
technical progress basically provides that 1 sq. km of the Earth surface
feed now not 1 but 100 men.
Some time later, due to the further «progress», already 200 men will
live on 1 sq. km, then 300, 400 etc.,
etc. The statisticians-demographers and the optimists-futurologists
consider that it is good and that the
more, the better. Simultaneously, sometimes even from the same people,
we hear also something
contrary: that the mankind sheerly can’t refuse escalating of atomic
engineering («We have no
choice», - the academician Velikhov speaks), of exhaustion of resources
(the population is great and
continues to be increasing22 (FOOTNOTE 22: The scientists
and especially demographers make the
words «the population is growing» and «in the beginning XXI centuries
the population will has
grown up to...» - whether with a shade of doom, whether with an
air of «the objective
observers» - by the same tone that are spoken «wind is blowing»
or «a river is flowing» - and
they offer nothing, as though speaking, what can be offered here?
It is interesting, when the
population is decreasing - here they leave the tone of doom and
«objectivity» both are calling
upon, and are offering the measures of stimulation to increase a
birth rate or reception of
immigrants), whereas the level of life is still insufficient),
of pollution of environment (the cleaning
installations in some cases cost a half of a cost of the plants). Thus
the illness is progressing - but, as it is considered, the progress can’t
be stopped. But it means, the mankind goes not there, where wants
and hopes to reach, but any blind force - the necessity, the progress
- drive the mankind. Where? -
«Oh, all the same! - many consider, -
.
Oh! Let's drink, let's to enjoy!
And when the death will come, let's to die!»
.
More «thoughtful» men consider that «the awful progress» is the blind,
inevitable movement of any
species, including a man, and in general, of all the beings - to the
destruction releasing a place for
something new, let's hope, for something even more progressive.
And someone else tell as if the Earth, «Gaia» is an as though alive
essence, and it, protecting itself, will
destroy the harmful mankind.
An academician N. N. Moiseyev considers that it is necessary as far
as possible more precisely, on
computers, to calculate the limits of growth, so as to not overstep
over these23. But near the very
boundary, when the question, by Moiseyev’s words, «will rise once with
all acuteness», it will too late to
begin to brake! And when the catastrophe will approach, whether will
people have understood what is
the deep reason of it? The people who were perished at Russian revolution
and Lenin dictatorship, in
Stalin’s camps, at the war, in cheap tall buildings at the Spitak or
Sakhalin earthquakes - were they understanding really that all these disasters
have actually the ECOLOGICAL reason: shortage of
resources and the struggle for resources because of overpopulation?
And now there are few people who understand this real deep reason of the
majority of disasters - it is considered that the reasons of wars, revolutions
and dictatorships are the ideological, moral, psychological ones (about
it you can read in
more detail in the next chapter).
FOOTNOTE 23: «The task is to calculate the fatal boundary, that may
not be crossed over»
(«Science and life» No 1, 1986, page 54). However «accuracy» of
similar computer calculations convinces nobody because it can be always
challenged because of its complexity. And these
disputes about accuracy «successfully» distract attention from that
simply fact that it is impossible infinitely to increase the pressure on
nature. Just by such the distracting dispute about accuracy of calculations
it was obscured and rejected by a world public the report of Roman Club
«Limits of growth» of 1972.
But why to reach up to «the limits of growth» in general? It is better
to stop beforehand, isn’t it? But if we
can not stop the growth now, how an academician Moiseyev is going to
stop it near the limit? It seems, the academicians simply have no boldness
to offer unpopular measures - therefore they want to shift the responsibility
to future generations of intellectuals - when «the question once will rise
with all acuteness».
Is it really not clear that the loading on biosphere has been already
brought to the limit? The scientists
speak it is not yet absolutely clearly and because of this unclearness
they demand more money for new researches, monitoring, photography from
cosmos and supercomputers.
Thus the scientific and technical progress «is guilty» only that it
creates an opportunity of increase of
material production from the same limited surface of Globe. But in
what the mankind uses opportunities,
given by progress, for increase of the population number instead of
raising of the quality of life and
improving of the environment protection, - in that neither «a technical
civilization», nor «unrestrained,
insatiable progress» are not guilty. But only the ecological unreason
of mankind is guilty. And first of all -
the unreason of their leaders, that is to say of their today's political,
scientific and cultural establishment
which has pretensions to be the mind of mankind but, preserving own
«prestige» and comfort, avoids
unpopular, «low» truths and keeps saying about necessity of the further
growth, growth and again of the
growth. And also actually deceives of the people, when it is covering
the growth as by a fig leaf by words «development» and «progress».
On what scientific character in the demographic problem it is possible
to speak if, for example, the
Radio «Liberty» declares: «The Cairo Conference will come to the decisions
on stabilization of the
population growth». As well The Voice of America (30.8.94) is transfering
the declaration of US
president Clinton: «It is necessary to stabilize the population growth».
But you see, a word «to stabilize»
is meaning «to keep growth by such that it is now» - with doubling
of a population of the Earth every 50
years! - to keep the growth so that it will not increased and will
not decreased but it would remain stable, constant. I am sure it
were not the slips of the tongue of the authors or, in any case, not casual
slips of the tongue. The intellectual establishment psychologically is
not ready, avoids even mentally to call the
important things by their proper names. Such the «malthusism» has not
crossed these authors’ minds - to
tell «to stabilize a population number». They, as well as majority,
consider that because children are being
born the population inevitably grows, and the growth of the population
can only be reduced, if it is
«excessive», but to stop growth absolutely - it is unnatural and impossible.
And once again I quote the
Radio «Liberty»: «It is necessary to adjust a gain of the population»
(once again: to adjust not a population number but only a gain of a population
number, but the gain itself, obviously, they considers, is inevitable
and, as such, may not be subjected to censure) - and further: «...In
Italy the gain is minimal, the
population even decreases». It is an absurd phrase - you see, if the
population is decreasing, a gain, even «minimal», is absent. But the author
makes this nonsense naming the reduction of a population number as
«the minimal gain» (by the way, «minimal» is how many?) because the
complete absence of a gain seems
to him even more inconceivable - because children continue being born!
Such is the scientific and
intellectual level of ours intellectuals. They as well the growth of
economy name as «the stability of
economy». Also I was meeting in press the identification of figure
of a gain of the population with figure
of birth-rate. Even the Cairo UN conference (of 1994) about the population
had put as the purpose
only the reduction of the gain. How! - but if absolutely to stop growth
or, especially, to reduce a
population there will be «the stoppage of development», «the regress»,
«demographic catastrophe», «depopulation», «degradation», «genocide», the
growth should be without fail! - the demographers
consider . «In the last resort, - the most free-thinking of them speak,
- there should be if only the mere reprodduction of the population». But
why?! Why it is necessary to support a population of the Earth
exactly at its present level - 6 billions, instead of, for example,
at the level of 4 billions or 2 billions?
Even these free-thinkers are not dare put to itself such the question.
But if the scientists are afraid to put
the questions squarely and speak out to the end, how it is possible
to expect the understanding of these problems by public? It is no wonder
that the radio «Deutsche Welle» - after many debates and
spoonfeedings have taken place on the Cairo conference - has declared
as if the problem consists in
«explosion of birth-rate». But really, not the birth-rate for
last centuries had grown - but the death-rate (especially in young
age) had decreased due to successes of medicine. Just it together with
growth of
production of the material goods had resulted to the «demographic explosion».
And it was necessary only, according to reduction of the death-rate, in
time to reduce as well the birth-rate to avoid disasters. But
to think and furthermore to speak about it, speaking out to the end,
were afraid and are afraid now.
With such the intellectuals what a «noosphere» can be! To the modern
politicians, scientists and journalists
it is possible completely to apply the Christ words, that had been
told 20 centuries back and had been addressed to Pharisees and Book-teachers
- the then establishment of Judea: «The bblind leaders of the
blind! Mad and blind! If a blind man leads a blind man, will they not
both fall into a pit?»
But it is unnecessary to resent this criticism of the intellectual establishment
- that is to say of all those who
have enough education and abilities to understand, and simultaneously
have a weight and voice in a society
to bring this understanding up to the people. As again Christ had told:
«From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded».
Now many ecologists are enthusiastic for a fashionable idea of «sustainable
development». This new
enthusiasm threatens to result for mankind in new and dangerous loss
of time. The academician
N. N. Moiseyev considers that «the concept of sustainable development
is one of most dangerous errors
of modernity» (See at «The Questions of Philosophy Monthly» No 1, 1995,
page 5). Really, the slogan of «sustainable development» rings beautifully
but is not specific. If it means that during increase of production
per head of the population, say, in 2 times the number of the
population in same 2 times will decrease,
then it would be possible to speak about balance, about stability.
But not only about reduction of a
population number but even about the termination of its growth is not
mentioned, hence it means
something unreal: it means we shall not further destroy environment
and we shall, moreover, restore the
already destroyed, not refusing neither from growth of the population,
nor from the even greater growth
of production. Thus the declarations about «transition to a model of
sustainable development» is turning
out to be a cloak for the continuing attempts to solve the problems
of mankind by the same thoughtless-pragmatic way of infinite growth.
The most worse is that intellectuals connive at such an thoughtless
way of treatment of society illness
resembling the pursuit by a kitten of its own tail. You see, insufficiently
just to cure the symptoms and consequences, but just the intellectuals
should at first correctly put the diagnosis, that is to say
scientifically to open the deep cause and mechanism of the illness.
Really, everybody hope for democracy and market - which, they say, should
promote increasing of
production and thus to solve the main problems - but nobody considers
scientifically the complex
question: WHY, despite of «electrification almost of all the countries»
plus ENORMOUS escalating of
the manufactures, that has been ALREADY occurred due to the scientific
and technological progress,
still the talking is about a survival and mankind in any way can not
solve economic, material problems?
WHY the revolutionary and international violence and wars for territories
are continuing?
WHY mankind and biosphere is threatened with ecological catastrophe?
Chapter 4. The understanding of the reason of disasters is absent.
About truth it is necessary to speak and to speak tireless, for around
us
again and again is preached the erroneous, and in addition not by separate
people but by masses. In the newspapers and encyclopedias, at schools
and universities the erroneous always on a surface, it feels fine and
comfortable because the majority is on the side of it.
(Goethe)
The most worse are the answers given on the aforesaid questions by Christian
churches. That the Bible
is full of fairy tales, it is not bad. «A fairy tale is lie but it
contains a hint that is a lesson for youth». It is
bad that the churches interpret the Bible not spiritually but literally,
just it results in the contradictions and absurdity. So, church doctrine
- as opposed to the own Christ doctrine -- is filled with disbelief that
mankind can arrange reasonable and happy life on the Earth. And after
churches the secular sages repeat
a «clever» phrase «A paradise on the Earth is impossible». These philosophers
teach: «Fear the one who
speaks: «I know, what is necessary to do!». Nobody knows, and nothing
can be done, the world and a
man are spoiled initially».
For example a Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov) wrote: «I had opened
a window. And suddenly a
pigeon had flown to me on a sill absolutely without fear. I had taken
the bread of, that had been left of a
journey, and began to crumble for him. How it was pleasant for me:
is not afraid of people! But then
another pigeon had flown. I am giving some crumbs for him too. But
the first one had already begun to
be jealous: why I give also to another?! He begins to peck of the new
visitor. My pleasure at once was
gone: - Oh, Lord! Even pigeons have a feud and make war. But, would
seems, they are such peaceful
birds! Even the Saviour specifies them as an example for apostles:
«Be meek as pigeons»
(Matthew 10:16). It has become sad in my soul. What to require of us,
of people, with all our egoism?! Somebody speak: there will be no wars
ever... It is a lie: always it will be, up to the end of the world.
Must be; as each of us in itself carries a source of wars: pride, envy,
spite, irritation, cupidity. Not
without reason one writer before death has told, when the son has asked
him, whether the wars will
be stopped - till a man remains a man, there will be wars too!
Also Son of God himself had predicted that not the progress but deterioration
of the human relations is in
store for the world. And before the end of the world there will be
especially terrible wars: a people
against a people will rise (instead of armies against armies), kingdom
against kingdom. Evil is into us, into
ours hearts; therefore all the history of this world and a man in general
is tragedy but not an easy and
cheerful outing. The world is spoiled, and we all are sinful.
Also my pigeons were not reconciled - both have flown away». («God's
people», M., 1991)
Thus, on a sill there was enough of crumbs for two pigeons but all the
same they fought - here, as speak,
we see the «irrational», is not known whence arisen, aggressive nature!
But the simplified «laboratory»
conditions of that sill do not suit as a model of biosphere - «crumbs»,
really, are not enough for
everybody. And if two bears or same two pigeons have a fight for territory,
it only seems irrational: is it
really not enough of a place for them? But the point is that the territory
is necessary to them not in
itself but because it supplies them with food. That is to say indirectly
nevertheless «the famine rules» them,
even if they are not hungry when they are fighting. Also people: it
seems they make war for any
psychological, ideological reasons but actually they make war for the
vital resources24.
FOOTNOTE 24: «The Resources» should be understood in the widest sense.
Struggle of animals
for females is the struggle for vital «resources» too. That concerns
people too, recollect if only
from a history of Ancient Rome famous «kidnapping of Sabinian women».
Under influence of the church dogma even the «father of Russian philosophy»
V. S. Soloviov had
displayed the naivety in this matter. He asserted: «The primitive relations
in mankind more remind «war
of all against all». It was occurring not from the compelled struggle
for existence but from free game of
malicious passions, was caused by envy instead of famine». Interestingly,
but why does these «the
malicious passions» has occurred, if not because of «the compelled
struggle for existence»? But despite of evidence of the latter, all the
same the majority considers that «only by education of consciousness
it is
possible to solve problems of mankind». And simultaneously the majority
does
not believe in a real
opportunity of such education.
Even a modern philosopher Erich Fromm thinks that the reason of wars
is the depravity of a human
nature. He says: «A man can be more easily prompted «todecide of problems»
by force, than to persistent constructive work that besides requires the
long time for to bear fruits». Erich Fromm does not notice that
people are working from the times when a monkey had gone down from
a tree and had taken a stick
into the hands, people are working already many thousands years but
it does not solve the problems,
problems remain the same. Certainly, the key to the decision of problems
is not in wars and revolutions -
but, as we see, also not in work.
The delusions of intellectuals and also of ordinary people about a primary
role of «malicious passions» in
disasters of mankind occur because all our culture is mythological
or, as now are spoken,
«literature-central», though it is clear to everybody, excepting Don
Kichot, that it is necessary to
distinguish the world of poetry, literature and cinema from the real
world. I would advise to everyone
more often to look TV about animals life to see correctly what are
life and biosphere. An academician
V. I. Vernadsky wrote: «A root of the decision of many, not only of
scientific but also of philosophical
problems, concerning a man, is in the scientific study of the biosphere».
The philosophers seeing the
reason of ecological crisis in «the consumerism and anthropocentrism
of the modern civilization»,
recommending to mankind «to not separate themselves from the nature,
to take from the nature only that
is necessary for life», to economize here and there, to become vegetarians,
to get rid from the arrogant anthropocentrism - do not notice that, for
example, the maximum «alternative» way of living of elephants,
their economical vegetarianism and the absence in their mentality of
the arrogant «elephant-centrism»
does not help elephants to solve their ecological problems. Similarity
of the situations of elephants and
people is that they as well as people have no enemies in nature. Elephants,
have been multiplied, destroy,
eat up vegetation - just as the people destroying biosphere. . Therefore
it has to shoot the elephants as
the whole herds, and it was shown on TV.
The philosophers does not also notice that the condemned by them «anthropocentrism»
is not any
ideological excess, not a «claim by a man of world domination», as
they speak, - but the fact. The fact of responsibility of a man for the
condition of biosphere. Because «a man has become a geological power»,
as Vernadsky had noticed. Moreover, now the life and the death of all
the biosphere depends from
mankind. Just on this fact of the anthropocentrism the idea of a noosphere
is based.
One more mistake of quoted above a Metropolitan Veniamin testifies how
the church dogma obscures
the initial Bible doctrine. He says: «Even pigeons - such peace birds
- make war... What may be
demanded from us, of the people!». On the contrary: animals cannot
that a man can, as he is created on
an image and similarity of God!
Also a near-Orthodoxy philosopher (not recognized by church) N. A. Berdiayev
echos to Metropolitan Veniamin, just adding the so pleasant for intellectuals
philosophical mist: as if say, oh, how it is difficult, «irrational», obscure,
uncognizable! Berdiayev writes: «A war is material revealing of the initial
contradictions of being, detection of irrationality of life. Pacifism
is a rational denying of the
irrational-obscure in life. And it is impossible to believe in the
eternal rational peace. Not without reason
the Apocalypses prophesies about wars. Christianity does not foresee
the peaceful and painless ending
of a world history. Below is reflected the same that is above, on the
Earth is that on the sky. But above,
on the sky, the angels of God struggle against the angels of Satan.
In all spheres of cosmos the fiery and
furious element is storming and the war is waged».
Such is the church doctrine. But, you see, Christ taught not like this.
The heavens, the Heavenly kingdom
is not the material cosmos, it is a FEASIBLE ideal for the Earth, nobody
is struggling on the heavens,
there an kingdom and a will of God are. «Your kingdom come, your will
be done on earth as it is in
heaven» - these are Christ words (Matth 6:10). But the churches teach
that our perfect, unique planet
the Earth and all alive on it, and «all affairs on it», and even all
the universe - are all the same doomed
shortly to burn down because of the people sins25. And if
also «the sky receded like a croll, rolling up» (Revelation 6:14, Isaiah
34:14), what will become with our Sun, with our Galaxy and with 10 billions
of
other galaxies, in each of these there are 10 billions suns? But for
Christians-literalists, only because they
believe in Trinity and in expiation by blood, God will create «new
bodies» and «new life», and «new the
Earth», and even «new the sky».
FOOTNOTE 25: Even the mentioned philosopher Berdiayev has named the
doctrine of the pedant-churches about end of the world and about eternal
flours in a hell as «orthodox sadism».
So Christians adopting the church doctrine are not really interested
in prevention of ecological
catastrophe: «Let the material world be burnt, a site in paradise is
ensured for us» - this is actually their
belief. But I think, if our Earth - this fine vineyard (Matth. 21:33)
that Heavenly Lord has planted and has arranged - will suffered the losses
because of the excessively multiplied mankind26, it is impossible
to hope
that the Owner will punish «non-Christians», but as if the believers
«have not the conviction». Just the
other way about! - «From everyone who has been given much, much will
be demanded» - as Christ
spoke.
FOOTNOTE 26: The emotional readers were indignant with my ostensibly
by bad attitude to
mankind, that, as seems to them, can be detected in words «excessively
multiplied mankind». But
as it had been told in Bible: «Be fruitfull and increase in number»,
it is necessary to warn and of excessive reproducing. But otherwise it
turns out like the saying «if to compel a fool to pray to
God, he will have hurt own forehead».
However so-called «Christians» prefer to be disposed to the Heavenly
Father not following the example
of Jesus Christ - as the adults, responsible sons - but as small, helpless
children. They speak: «All we are
going under God. Why in general to participate in policy, to struggle
«for ecology», or against wars, or to
prevent new Chernobyls? May be, these actually are necessary? It may
be the plan of God is such that we should suffer? But never mind, soon
God will come again and will arrange everything for us without us».
This dependence is expressed most distinctly by «a Church of the Witnesses
of Ihegova». They teach
that the people and governments cannot solve the problems of mankind
and even the Witnesses
themselves do not understand how to solve though they have studied
Bible. But when 144000 men God
will nominate into his heavenly government - all problems will be solved.
Well, a god with them, with the «Christians». It is bad that disbelief
in «Utopia», in «rationalism», in ability
of mankind to decide «eternal» problems - is adopted from the Christian
churches as well by the newest fashionable ideologies - by beginning from
Freudism and ending by postmodernism and with the theories
that a man is «an impasse of the evolution» (Arthur Kestler) etc. Unaccidentally
the literature of XX
century has become the literature of absurdity. People don't believe
in an opportunity of the solving and
for this reason offer nothing also do not listen any offers . About
this disbelief Berdiayev writes in the autobiographic book «Self-knowledge»:
«When at one of ten days in Pontigny the problem of loneliness
was put, it was considered the loneliness at Petrarca, at Rousseau,
at Nietzche... Western cultural people consider each problem first of all
in its reflection in the culture, that is to say already in the secondary.
In
the put problem the life does not tremble, there is no creative fire
in the attitude to it... Their thinking has
become heavy and in effect is weakened by the tradition of thinking,
is disunited by the history. Already
they a little believe in an opportunity of the decision of problems
on the substance, it is possible only the
study of it in the history of thinking. This is the cultural skepticism,
absence of freshness of soul»27.
Berdiayev says there are three human types: looking for, sceptic and
dogmatist, but «sceptic, as a matter
of fact, does not search properly, he is not in movement».
FOOTNOTE 27: Instead of answering on the substance, for sure someone
will try to brush aside
this my book too, by hanging a suitable label - for example, «Russian
cosmism», «messianism» -
as though speaking, all this we already saw.
Just such, already not so much «christianized» by church, as «buddized»
by the fashionable gurus the
intellectual elite generates the psychology of «hung hands». Erich
Fromm wrote: «The idea of progress
is named today as a children's illusion, and instead of it there is
in wide use a word «realism», designating,
in effect, a lack of the belief in a man».
Long time I didn’t understand why my previous article«The Ecological
Taxes Instead of Income Ones,
or How to Create a Noosphere» (in a St. Petersburg magazine
«Zvezda» No 9, 1993) had not caused
any stir in the intellectuals circles. At last (12.4.97) I had heard
the revelation of a commentator of the
Radio «Liberty» Anatoly Strelianyi, he had told: «It is impossible
to rescue the mankind because the
mankind is an historical phenomenon that is to say temporary». In general,
the human life, in opinion of
many intellectuals, is simply «a game with beads». But any drug addict
or drunkard in a beer-house
states the same and even more bluntly: «All the same we all shall croak».
Also French king Luis XVI told:
«After us let the floodwaters comes». In his country he had driven
the affairs to the revolution, that had established a totalitarian regime,
and he had terminated the life on a guillotine. Thus over mankind a
threat of the self-carrying out prophecies has impended too.
So to speak, «According to your disbelief
will it be done to you».
The unbelief in a man follows from what the intellectuals in searches
of the reasons of mankind disasters
look in absolutely other direction, their approach to a problem is
not natural-scientific, not materialist -
but idealist, «literature-centric». By seeing that to the physical
(material) phenomena: to the ecological
disasters, wars, crimes, violence, revolutions - the phenomena mental
(spiritual): egoism, hatred, enmity
and «ideologies» precede, the majority of people for the simplicity
think that just these spiritual phenomena
are the reason of those material ones. Such a course of thinking is
spread also among the philosophers
and intellectuals but it is, as a matter of fact, the same primitive
idealism - when people were animating
subjects, elements and were believing in evil spirits. In reality,
if two phenomena are connected, it is not
always necessary that one of them is the reason and another is the
consequence; both of them can be
the consequences of any common reason.
It is easy to understand it, but according to modern myths created by
the intellectuals (including the
ecologists) - with different modifying having inherited from Christian
church the hopeless idea of human sinfulness - the reasons of material
disasters of mankind is ostensibly the psychological, spiritual,
ideological. Moreover the reasons mutually exclusive and contradicting
each other are named. Namely
the following reasons: greed, vanity, «arrogance» (Vatslav Gavel, president
of Czechia), «envy»
(V. S. Soloviov), «the human nature» - ostensibly especially «aggressive»
(that is to say ostensibly the
passion specially peculiar to a man, to kill, to destroy, to pollute),
«a will to authority», «transition from
culture to a civilization», «the Judaic-Christian heritage» (as if
belittling the nature up to an auxiliary role),
«the Prometheus spirit of titanism», «the Faust type of personality»,
«backlog of moral progress of mankind
from scientific and technical one» (Teillhard De Chardin), «the technical
progress should be balanced with
the moral one» (pope) - (why till now is it not possible in any way
to have balanced these?); «inability to
operate technics, to subordinate technics to a spirit», «absence of
a habit to consider the interests of
other people», «the civilization outstrips the culture, the civilization
is heartless» (Moiseyev, a
dance-master), «the civilization of consumption should be replaced
by a civilization of creativity» (an
academician Moisseyev), «alienation and dehumanization of a technological
society» (Erich Fromm),
«a rupture with nature», «coercion of a nature», «conquest of nature».
At such the naive-idealist understanding of the reasons of crisis also
the unbelief in a man it is no wonder
that neither the Nobel-prize winners, nor all the academicians, nor
whole the scientific institutes - have
offered to mankind any decision, anything except of their «anxiety»,
the calls «to ponder» and general
phrases. Therefore the trust to a science is falling, and accordingly,
to put it mildly, the «exotic» theories,
religions and sects, like «the Witnesses of Ihegova» or «Aum Senrieke»
are spreading.
Here a sample of similar general phrases and happy wishes by Erich Fromm:
«Also we in «the free
world» - we worship the force, but not the force of dictatorship or
bureaucracy but the anonymous force
of the market, success, public opinion, of «common sense» - or more
exactly, of the force of absurdity -
and the force of technics, servants of which we have become»... (But
why have become? Again the
reasons are moral, psyhological?)... «The peace between the people,
between a man and nature... it is
an embodiment of true harmony and unity, it is experience of «expiation»
in the world and inside oneself,
it is the end of alienation and returning of a man to himself... The
exit is in activation of an individual and humanization of the technology...
Peace between a man and a nature is the harmony between them.
Nature don’t any more threaten a man, he any more doesn’t intend firmly
to conquer nature: he begins
to belong to a nature... The creation of a healthy society assumes
that a man will learn not blindly but
reasonably to adjust the relations with nature».
«A man will learn» - well then teach us now: what exactly and how a
man should reasonably adjust. It
may be to adjust the population number? How to do it? But they are
silent. They are afraid to tell
directly.
But others - those who «believe in a man» - because of their optimism
they does not believe in the
gravity of crisis and therefore propose nothing radical too.
Chapter 5. From biosphere - world of famine and violence - to a noosphere.
The historical process is a long difficult transition from an animal-humanity
to a god-humanity (to kingdom of God).
(V. S. Soloviov)
Only during the reign of Nicholas II the population of Russia had increased
by 40%.
(With delight and reproach to Yeltsin the candidate in the presidents
Yury Vlasov spoke, citing Oldenburg who studied the duplicates of
imperial archives in Paris.)
The population is increasing, the life space becomes more and more narrow...
(Lenin, 1903)
A number of judicial processes has opened the true reasons of willful
captures of landowner's lands by peasants, of the arsons and violence.
The
motive is one - «it’s cramped - there is nothing to live».
(«The Voter Guide», 1906)
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him -
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding...
The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat...
People will beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up swords against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.
(Isaiah 11:1,2,6; 2:4)
But following the callings upon of the academicians, «I have pondered»
- and now I assert that all the
main disasters and problems of mankind, in essence, is one disaster
and problem - the ecological one,
and the first-cause is not «a severance between the technical progress
and the moral one» and not
«a severance with nature», but on the contrary, it is that the mankind
still have not broken with nature -
with its law «love and famine rule the world».
This law was formulated by a poet Friedrich Schiller28. «Love»
here, certainly, is an euphemism, and
means a sex. Also «famine» is a generalization of disasters - that
are being increased when population
number is excessive and by this are being furthered the reduction of
the number that «the love», on the
contrary, tries to increase. Thus «love» and «famine» adjust the vegetative,
animal and human population
in the world, that is to say «rule the world».
FOOTNOTE 28: In a poem «All wisdom of the world» Shiller says: the
philosophers from the
rostrums speak the beautiful-silly words while love and famine rule
the world. Presently philosop
hers are engaged more in abstraction, but for public the announcers,
publicists and journalists
speak the beautiful-silly words. Nazism, they speak, occurs from
hostility to foreigners. That is to
say there is tautology again, again the same explanation of the
world evil by the psychological
reasons and the struggle just against these.
«Love and famine rule the world» it is the main law of biosphere, the
main law of ecology. Because the
ecology is not «a science about pollution» as many people think. It
is unnecessary to confuse ecology
and sanitation. Ecology is a BIOLOGICAL science, the science about
interaction of a population of any biological species (it is unessential
just of a human) - and the environment of its living. At this interaction
the main characteristic of a population is its number and the main
characteristic of environment is amount
of vital resources necessary for life of this biological species. For
example, if in closed volume the
bacteria live, and they do not have enemies, they will multiplied
and then will perish - or from famine,
by having exhausted resources, necessary for their life, or,if they
find new resources, they will multiplied
further and will perished from poisoning of the environment with their
own scraps.
The intellectuals - educated not on natural-scientific but on humanitarian,
«literature-centric» paradigm -
in searches of the reason of mankind disasters endlessly philosophize
about the subtleties of «Protestant
ethics», «Euro-Asianism», various ideologies, cultures, «civilizations»,
psychology, sociology, policy,
economy, history and do not want to see that the explanation is quite
simple - that just «love and famine
rule the world»29 (FOOTNOTE 29: An Abkhazian writer Fazil
Iskander once correctly has noticed:
«When we have everything in abundance, we all together enjoy on
a feast and do not think who
is Abkhazian and who is Georgian. . But when the boons are not enough
- then the international
conflicts begin». However in the other place he declares: «It is
necessary to harmonize the
mankind - and by culture more than by policy and economy». Well,
but harmonize first of all the
number of mankind with opportunities of the Earth and nature - so
that everybody have
everything in abundance!). Today the philosophers are certainly
the culture-philosophers. Therefore
they do not understand how to decide the problems of mankind. But it
means that at next moment of
sharpening of these problems the primitive-foundationalists - red,
brown or of other colors - will again
come to power and will have solved the problems by their way of wolf.
Because, as A. S. Pushkin had
told, «fools are always inclined to evil deeds». And also because it
must be solved. You see, even the
excursions to an orbit of 25 astronauts per a year strain the budget.
Therefore it is a complete delirium -
the dream of thorough resettlement into cosmos of 250000 people DAILY.
Exactly such the gain of the population of the Earth is present now, that
is to say the excess of birth-rate above death-rate per a day.
And it is - when even without any gain - with today's population number
- we see, even in the rich
countries, the rigid, strained life, struggle for a survival
and degradation of environment.
An academician Moiseyev speaks: «The technical decision of the approaching
ecological crisis is absent!» («Neva» monthly, No 10, 1995). However the
humanitarians think of the ecological problem simply. For example, a philosopher
Boris Paramonov considers that «new, pure fuel will be invented soon and
thus a
half of the ecological problems will be solved». Oh, certainly! Then
one more any thing will be invented -
and thus the second half of the problems will be solved, so the ecological
crisis will be terminated.
But everybody should see that during the progress of mankind any improvements
give only temporary
relief. As in a fairy tale «Alisa in the country behind mirror» it
was told: «It is necessary to run as fast as
you can to remain just on the same place». In the past the replacement
of wooden ploughs by a steel
ones and the horse-draft by machines had not solved, as everybody hoped,
the material problems of
mankind. Then people also hoped for «the electrification of all country»,
then - for nuclear energy, now
the industrial dreams are replaced by the postindustrial ones: now
they hope for «the information
civilization of the third wave», that in practice is turning out to
be a civilization of information noise,
information pollution. They hope for computers, for gene-engineering.
«The Red-Greens» hope to save
very much if to liquidate the high classes and «their» culture, «to
break a man of greed and consumerism»,
«to simplify the way of living», to proceed to vegetarianism. The majority
continue to hope that private
property, «the middle class», democracy, investments of capital - will
rescue.
However the economic growth is being continued already thousands years
but abundance does not still
come. On the contrary, it looks as though, the economic problems will
develop into the crisis. Neither
the Keins' theory, nor the monetarism, nor the social-democratic «Swedish
model» are helping. But
now the ecological problems have arisen and are developing into the
crisis too. The point is that
mankind, like the above mentioned bacteria, also lives in closed volume
of biosphere, practically has no
enemies, the mankind number is being increased like an explosion from
a beginning of the scientific
revolution discovering new and new resources (see a diagram in the
first chapter). Therefore any
miracles of technical progress and organizational improvements (private
property, investments of capital, common markets, escalating of consumption
of resources and manufacture of goods) and also, on the
contrary, any measures of «optimization», of resources economy (disarmament,
ecological taxes, socialist «alignment of incomes») - will have not solved
the problems of mankind but only will allow mankind to
multiply further by putting off the catastrophe. Already mentioned
seeming «opening» of the
demographers, as if the increase of an education level reduces the
birth-rate as far as it is necessary will
not help too. Because it’s clearly, that, if the conditions of life
will be improved considerably, not only uneducated people but also the
families with high education may have 4-6 children.
I think Malthus was understanding too that disasters: the illnesses,
famine, wars, revolutions - do not
really solve any problems of mankind. These are just a permanent background,
so to speak, way of
living on this «land of grief»30, because the growth of
a population can be restrained only by disasters
and troubles, that are already existing or are being expected because
of birth of a child. A phrase «love
and famine rule the world» is meaning exactly this.
FOOTNOTE 30: To not answer a question on the reasons of these disasters,
the modern
scientists do not use a word «disasters», but speak about «the crises»,
which, as they say, «are
the necessary companion of any development». Also to enhance «scientific
character» they
say «the system crises».
But it is necessary that THE MIND WOULD RULE THE WORLD, that is to say
it is necessary that
the mind would determine number of a population without waiting when
the excessive number will cause
crisis, and the disasters will exert pressure in the direction of reduction
of the number. Thus when the
mind will replace disasters as a regulator of the population number
- then mankind will passed from
epoch of life under the animal laws of biosphere - of «a kingdom
of this world founded on the evil», as
Christ say - to the epoch of a noosphere, of which Vernadsky
dreamed. Today the mind on the Earth is actually absent,
because, on the one hand, here the economists and «love» ARE RULING - by
pushing
to growth, and on the other hand, - neediness, illnesses and violence
- as a NECESSARY, and hence
ALSO AS AN INEVITABLE COUNTERACTION constraining growth, - exactly
like among animals
not having the mind, whose number is being adjusted, as are spoken,
«by nature» - that is to say by famine, illnesses and by mutual extermination.
Such the «harmony» is in nature. Therefore the calls «to live in the
complete consent with the world of nature» are not too clever.
That I say is it similar to Malthus theory? It is similar but not absolutely.
I say nothing about a «geometrical progression», about an «arithmetic progression»
- certainly, these are nonsense - the poppulation cannot
grow in a degree greater, than manufacture of necessary things grows.
I say that in the latter case the
population, though can, but should not grow, moreover - it should
decrease, as differently at increase of manufacture the pressure upon the
biosphere is increasing. I don't say, alike Malthus, that famine,
illness's and wars - are good for regulation of a population
number, I say that these are inevitable so
far the mankind is living under the laws of biosphere - that is to
say when the evolution and progress are
being promoted not by mind but by famine and violence - when the mind
and science if are present then
only as the subsidiary tool. A merit of Malthus - as well as a merit,
for example, of Freud - is that
Malthus had the boldness to consider what the «scientists-humanists»,
in the majority, don't want to see,
what they avoid even to think about, what they «eject out of mind»,
because such the thoughts conflict
with their humanist belief (religion, world outlook), that is more
dear to them than a scientific truth.
An academician Vernadsky at 1942, at crisis of the war wrote: «We live
in a remarkable period of a
history of our planet - the anthropogeneous era, when spontaneously
during millions years a man -
with stops but steadily, at the last centuries faster and faster
- becomes a geological power changing
the face of our planet. It depends on us to make the spontaneous
process as conscious one, to
transform area of life - the biosphere into a kingdom of mind -
into a noosphere. The scientists of
our country should set themselves it as an object». But then
(1943) Vernadsky is perplexed: «Never
I felt as now, on the one hand - the cosmic process and on the other
hand - a human speck of dust in it.
The deepest and, it seems, high understandings of everything disappear.
It is impossible in any way to understand why there are necessary such
the sufferings that now are going on in the vandalism having
arisen in mankind again».
This misunderstanding dominates also now. Fighters for peace who try
«to create the world without
violence» by the calls for «the moral rearming» that is why cannot
achieve a success because they
obstinately do not see biological, ecological, that is to say
the real, the deepest reason of enmity,
violence, wars and revolutions. It seems to them that the recognition
of the biological reason takes away
hope to reach peace. You see, «biological» is a synonym of «natural».
But «natural» - for non-Christian
mentality - is «normal» and «inevitable». The Christian mentality or,
to be exact, the church mentality, as
I had shown above, even in behavior of pigeons, let alone the people
- sees the not biological reason
but «the game of malicious passions». Therefore the fighters for peace
- both «the non-Christians» and
«the Christians» - prefer to struggle against windmills - against any
false reason, for example, against «the ideologies» in general, are preaching
«the de-ideologization». Or they struggle against «disconnection of the
people», aspire to create an united European state or even the world state.
But the ideologies (fanatical) can be the reason of excesses only -
but not the wars and violence as the
such. To consider the absence of unity as the reason of enmity
it means to put a cart ahead of a horse,
to confuse the reason and consequence. Therefore the aspiration to
achieve peace by so-called «unity»,
that is to say by creation the empires31, international,
inter-European or world governments - is similar
to attempt to stopper up a boiling cauldron. It is possible only during
short time, then steam will all the
same break through - because the original reason of boiling - the fire
under the boiler is not eliminated.
FOOTNOTE 31: United Europe is being formed for the sake of the discontinuance
of wars in
Europe. But this is an empire also, though presently empires are
being constructed not by military compulsion, but by economic compelling
to join a common market.
The conflicts and wars occur not because there are different religions,
ideologies, political systems,
different states and «civilizations». The deep first-cause of violence,
revolutions, dictatorships and
wars - also is not immorality, not xenophobia, not national prejudices
- but the struggle for resources
always limited because of increase of number of the people that is
following as a shadow behind the
increasing of used resources32 (see the diagram of demographic
explosion in the first chapter), - just
as among animals or plants struggling for a place under the sun. But
what is the attribute by which the
people should be united (and should be separated) during of this struggle
for resources - by family
attribute, national, ethnic, religious, «civilization», ideological,
state, professional, class, Mafia - it is not
essence and depends on local circumstances. Also from the struggle
the dictatorships are born (but not
the other way about). The circumstances of the struggle also form ideology
suitable to these. As
spoken, these all are the «superstructure». But the «basis» is the
resources shortage inducing the struggle,
that is to say «famine», in direct or metaphorical sense, - inevitable
in the world living under the law
of biosphere.
FOOTNOTE 32: But if to look simply: where is a war? In Tadjikistan,
in Chechnia, in Kosovo.
But where during the previous decades there was a high-birth rate?
Also there.
Therefore for all the countries, together or separately, an alternative
that mankind is faced, is the such:
or, by keeping, and even by increasing the number, the mankind on the
devastated and poisoned Earth
at a cram and at spite will suffer and degrade because of Chernobyl
and other similar «the illnesses of a civilization» (these actually are
the consequences not the civilizations but overpopulation), famine,
violence, wars and permanent extreme regime of totalitarian, Orwell
type that is necessary at such
situation, - or during of about 300 years the number of mankind will
be reduced in about 10 times -
quite painlessly - as a result of decrease of birth-rate down
to one child on a family, - and then
mankind will prosper and develop on the Earth in bloom, not afraid
wars, dictatorships and ecological
accidents, using technics and a «market» but having no need to become
their slave or hostage.
Thus, by achieving the reduction of the population number, each country,
first of all, improves the own
life. But by not achieving - they, first of all, punishes themselves.
Only recently it have been understood
in China33. It seems, it will been understood in other countries,
as well as in China, too late, and then it
will be necessary to take the same rigid measures, as take in China
now. For now the different authors,
using Chinese demographic policy as a bugbear, try to prove impossibility
to reduce a population by
state influence and even impossibility to stop its growth, - exactly
like a proverb «who wants to do -
looks for ways, but who does not want - looks for reasons
- to not do».
FOOTNOTE 33: Someone will speak: China is certainly overpopulated.
But in Russia - there are
so much empty spaces! Who so speaks, overlooks that in China they
have three harvests per an
year but the large part of Russia is the eternal frost. Thus both
China is overpopulated, and
Russia is overpopulated, as well all other countries, but each country
is overpopulated in
accordance with the opportunities to have fed (more correctly -
to have underfed) the
population.
Meanwhile, the simple and at quite not terrible ways and measures necessary
for reduction of
birth-rate, obviously, should be the next:
1. The explaining actions. The society should have comprehended the
circumstances mentioned in this
article, so that they could have agreed with the measures offered below.
A duty of all educated and understanding people - to join in those explaining
actions, instead of to be hidden in their professions as
in an «ivory tower of arts». Otherwise it will turn out as in a fable:
«Were you singing? It’s a business.
Come on to dance now».
2. The government should announce the norm «one child in a family» and
the principle «the supporting of
children is a affair of their parents». But thus it would be unreasonable
to hope for «enthusiasm» and «consciousness» of the population. You see,
if the «conscious» part of the citizens will limit themselves to
one child on a family, it will increase material resources of a community,
the level of living and will allow «irresponsible» ones to have 2-4 children.
It means, apart from the exhortations, it is necessary:
3. The discontinuance of all grants and privileges that the parents
receive for the children. Certainly, it
does not exclude the social help to the people really living in misery.
4. And only in the countries, where the enumerated measures will not
give due result, will be necessary
a kind of the ecological tax - for child-bearing. If a man wants
to have one or several children, the
desire is natural and it is impossible to condemn him. But let him
to have everything that he wants but
only for his own money, the society should not conduce to reduction
of resources of a planet, and
moreover, should by tax measures to create obstacles to it.
I emphasize the necessity of economic stimulus. Often people say in
simplicity: «Why to adjust the
birth-rate and to control the population number - it is enough to propagate
and to sell the
contraceptives». But they do not ponder as far as from its sale the
birth-rate will decrease? Will it
decrease enough? As far as the growth of population will decrease?
Or it will be stopped absolutely?
Or the population will be decreasing? It is absolutely not clear. Because
the contraceptives are only the
means of regulation. Therefore it is also necessary the rather strong
«regulating influence» - if to use
the term of the engineering theory of regulation, - «the stronger,
the greater deviation of a size of the
adjustable parameter from the established size there is». As, for example,
a rudder is only a means of car
control, but it is also necessary to be turning the rudder, and to
be turning it just by such the angle so as
the car has gone round an obstacle. But if you have turned it not enough
- an accident all the same will
take place, in spite of the fact that there was the rudder in the car
and that the rudder was used.
The opponents of abortions and contraception means, like pope - as they
name themselves «the
defenders of life» - should first call upon the people to decrease
of the population number of the
Earth by reduction of birth-rate up to one child on a family. Because
not abortions but namely the overpopulation threatens life on the Earth,
by bringing nearer the global catastrophe, to which more
than to the fall of Jerusalem the words of Christ is suiting: «Here
come the days, when will be told: Are
happy who did not give birth, did not suckle, who are sterile!» (Luke
23:29).Certainly, the abortion is
poorly, but to punish a woman and even more a doctor for the abortion
is a fanatical unceremoniousness, masked by the religiousness, no matter
how their religion is named - «Christianity», «Mohammedanism», «Judaism»
or «Humanism». But the injunction of euthanasia is even absolute dullness.
How it is possible
to forbid to a man to choose to live or to not live?!
Demography is a surprising science, it is not interested by the reasons
and explanations what is going on.
It declares: «Just today the demographic curve is going through a point
of a bend». Just imagine - it is
going through and that's all. It is no wonder, that in light-minded
press the soothing forecasts are very
popular. As speak, the scientists have carried out some «researches»
(researches of what?) and
completely precisely have calculated that «at XXI century the growth
of the population of the Earth will
be slowed down» and probably will ceased. The hint is clear: it is
unnecessary to do anything especial for
it, the demographic problem will be decided «automatically». But they
do not speak: why the growth will
almost be stopped? It is to be thought - that because of bad life34.
So here, the essence of my offers is
how, without deterioration of life but, on the contrary, with its significant
improvement at the same time
to decide the demographic problem, that is to say to liquidate the
overpopulation of the Earth, because
of which the main disasters take place.
FOOTNOTE 34: I hear an objection: «It isn't true! The West is prospering,
and other countries
should increase manufacture and to have overtaken the West». Indeed?
Is it prospering? But
why then does the West not want to stop, but continues to increase
manufacture and so is
afraid of discontinuance of the growth? Whether will the biosphere
sustain, if other countries
will increase the manufacture up to the same degree? And is the
low birth-rate not because of
bad life? But ask western people, why do they not acquire second
child, third child? - and you
will get an answer - «because of the material problems». Radio «Canada»
was describing such a questioning.
Often are objecting that to the different countries and regions «it
is necessary to apply the different
approach». Because in some countries the population is increasing quickly
but in others - almost isn’t
increasing or even is decreasing. But I offer the different approach
too: where now there are, on the
average, 4 children in a family, is offered to reduce the norm from
four up to one, but there, where 2
children in a family - to reduce only from two up to one35.
Also we shall not forget a usual answer-back accusation coming from the
countries with quickly increasing population: «But in your countries per
one
your inhabitant it is being produced the pollution, is being consumed
the energy and resources, more
than in our countries per ten our inhabitants». Certainly, it not argument:
if in the advanced countries
each man destroys a nature, it give no rights for each ten men in the
undeveloped countries to do the
same. Thus we see, when the population is excessive, neither the riches
of the country, nor the thrifty
poverty save from destruction of environment, but in «rich» countries
(to be exact, in technically
advanced ones) there is the excessive population already when it is
10 times smaller than in the
undeveloped countries.
FOOTNOTE 35: Few will express aloud what others think in soul: «Certainly,
- they’ll
tell or think, - it is necessary to limit birth-rate of the Chinese,
Indians, Negroes or Arabs but
our birth-rate is already low». But I think, the advanced countries
must declare norm «one
child on family» at first for themselves, then they will have the
moral right to demand the same
from the underdeveloped countries, to which they give the economic
help and privileges.
Probably, it will be not possible to achieve the exact observance of
the norm «one child in a family». But
the greater reduction of the birth-rate will be achieved, the more
probable that the mankind will have
time to solve economic and ecological problems and will survive. Only
when as a result of such counter
efforts the problems will be solved - whether it will be achieved at
a population of the Earth reduced to
0,5 billion or at 2, or already at 4 billions - but only then the norm
of birth-rate may be increased up to
two children in a family that will ensure in the future constancy of
the population number of the Earth.
Is it possible to achieve by such way of reduction of a population of
the Earth? Is this the Utopia? Is it
possible the transition to the noosphere epoch in general? For who
doubt, I bring here the Erich
Fromm’s words: «A question not in that, whether there is at us a certitude
in the opportunity to achieve
a change.At questions of life both individual, and society the probability
of healing - 51% or 5% is not
so important. The life is risky and is unpredictable, and the sole
way to have lived is to make an effort to preserve it each time at each
presented opportunity».
Chapter 6. Replacement of harmful income-taxes by useful ecological
ones.
A flowing of the capital out of Russia makes 40 billions dollars per a
year.
(prof. M. Bernstam, 6-Aug-2000)
However many decades are necessary for the solution of the
demographic problem. So as the mankind could has gained the time avoiding
ecological catastrophe, I offer a way - how to achieve not only resolute
shift in the direction of economy of energy, resources and reduction of
pollution but also fast decision of such economic problems, as deficiency
of the budget, unemployment insufficient social maintenance. This way is
to establish high taxes for production (but where there is not the production
- for import into the country) of energy and of other natural resources,
of resource-capacious products, and also for production of polluting substances.
And these ecological taxes must be established not for consumers of the
resources but for the extracting enterprises, that is to say at the beginning
of a manufacturing-consuming chain. Also these must be levied not after
the extracted product is sold, but at once after extracting it, and the
size of the tax should not depend on a sale price.
I ask the reader to not speak: «I do not want to go deep into it, I
am not an expert in taxes». You must not be an expert but you have to be
a citizen and a voter, therefore it is necessary to understand, what variants
of tax system can be offered to the country.
Really, what is the reason of the today's crash of Russia? Why under
communists, «at the time of stagnation», despite of mismanagement, the
wasting and inefficiency - the state had enough money for maintenance of
the low prices, also for army, for a science, for astronautics, for culture,
education, public health services, for house-building and for support of
the «friendly» countries, also our leaders then did not live in misery
- why there was enough money? Because theen just the state, instead of
any private trader, was getting the RENT FROM NATURAL RESOURCES. This rent,
as a matter of fact, was a rough prototype of the ecological taxes, that
I here offer. But then after taking the place of the communists-dogmatists
the democrats-dogmatists thoughtlessly adopting from West even that there
already poorly works and is obsolete - have given up all riches of the
rent actually into private hands. They hoped that our state, after a western
model, will have managed with the small share of these riches - income-taxes
that ostensibly will be paid to the state by these private traders.
A known American economist, former adviser of the president of Russia
about economy the professor of the Stanford university Miñkle Bernstam
has approximately the same opinion on the reasons of crash of Russia. In
an interview of a Radio «Liberty» in the beginning of 1995 he spoke: «Russia
sells natural resources on the West and receives approximately a half of
what these are costing in the world market. Thus, Russia loses per year
of 13-15 billions of dollars. This money is stayed in the West on the private
accounts of the chiefs of the Russian enterprises, intermediaries and God
knows of someone else. We name it «a outflow of the capital», but actually
it is real outflow of natural resources. It must be understood thus: if
sometime somewhere in a hell, in boiled water I will being tortured by
pincers or will being beaten by stones - it will be, because at the end
of 1991 together with Gaydar’s government and together with the representatives
of parliament, I participated in making the decree about liberalization
of foreign trade. We all have not understood one thing then - we all are
to blame - we have made a very large scientific mistake: we have not understood
that it isn’t impossible to allow freedom of foreign trade for the state
enterprises. If a private trader would export resources, a private trader
should pay the taxes for natural resources. And these can be equal to 85%
and 90% of the cost. This difference between the price of manufacture and
the price in the world market as the rent payments would come in treasury»...
Here prof. Bernstam is cunning. The task of the sorry reformers just was
to leave from the rent and to replace it by taxes from the profit and income
- unimportantly, from private traders or from state enterprises. Because
their basic dogma - «to do all as in the West». «The situation is turning
out, - Prof. Bernstam is continuing, - when we high-clever intellectuals
and the officials - we make the rough scientific mistakes, not understanding
a situation, but the people is paying it by their well-being. Here we have
created the completely monstrous situation. I admit honestly, I participated
in making it, and it is necessary to beat me by stones, is exact as well
as all others. But now it is necessary to realize the mistake, oversight
and to have changed this situation, and it is possible to have made it
for 24 hours».
But Gaydar persists in his error. Even in the interview of the Radio
«Liberty» in May, 1998 he declares: while the state was receiving the rent
on natural resources - these «bad money», in his opinion - the state did
not want to carry out the reforms. It was necessary to disorganize the
everything (that is to say to discredit the reforms also!), in order «to
start the reforms». Gaydar‘s logic is the such. Though Kuwait and other
Arabian Emirates for some reason do not complain, that they have a lot
of incomes from the natural riches.
The program of our reformers is simple up to primitive:
1. «Let as much as possible deeds to drift.. The less the government
interferes, operates, the better it (the government) is. The people will
pull a blanket everyone to themselves, and thus everything will be adjusted
automatically».
2. «And in general to do everything as in the West».
In America if a private proprietor buys a land site, where later on
petroleum or gold is discovered, its all are his property, he becomes a
rich man. Well, it has developed in America historically, it is their affair.
But it wasn’t here! We lived at the expense of natural resources, and when
the market dogmatists had given up what was belonging to the state to the
private proprietors - we had got poorer; a science, education, public health
services, the army - began to wrecked, inflation had begun.
Let you think, why should the private traders make profit on natural
resources, instead of state? Those who extracts resources should receive
the normal salary. Those who trades in resources should receive the norm
of profit. But everything that is over and above it - the rent for natural
resources - should come to the state!
And what we see now? Even in USA there was a budget crisis, because
of that the work of establishments and public services stopped. In France
there were strikes and demonstrations against reduction of the expenses
of budget. In Russia - delay of the salaries. And everywhere disappointment
in politicians and parties. It shows that neither governments of the «social»
states, nor public, nor economists, as they sweat over, can guess, by that
taxes it is possible to extract so much means for the budget, how many
it is necessary, not undermining thus by income-taxes the profitability
of the enterprises and interest in work, and consequently they are compelled
to cut down the expenses of budget.
However already it is appearing the understanding of the necessity to
tax not getting of the income but the consumption. The international ecological
organization World Watch offers to replace the harmful income taxation
with ecological ones. But people heads are occupied with a dogma as if
«the taxes are being paid from the incomes». And from here unfounded conclusion
is drawn that the tax can be paid ostensibly only after the income from
sale of a product is received, and that the size of the tax should depend
on size of the income. By paraphrasing a poet it is possible to tell: we
say «the taxes» but imply «income-taxes»36(FOOTNOTE 36: Even
Yavlinsky is confused. Once he correctly notices: «Ours liberals - Gaidar,
Chubais - are not liberals at all: they have brought a level of the taxes
in the country up to 90 % (from the profit, it is necessary to understand
- N. K.), they have transferred all incommes from use of natural resources
to the narrow group of the people, basically - to the former communist
nomenclature». Then he again does not see an alternative to income-taxes:
«What is necessary? So as in the budget there was money. Whence money can
be taken? Only from the people - by taxes. Hence it is necessary to make
so that the people paid the taxes»). The prevailing notion about «harm
of the high taxes» also occurs because under «the taxes» everyone think
just the income-taxes, as though other forms of the taxation are not thought
up already a long time ago. The publicists and even the economists say:
«The citizens should well earn - then the government will receive in the
budget the means by the taxes». The right-wing politicians do not find
anything cleverer, as «to reduce the taxes» (the income-taxes), recovering
economy, but suffocating the social sphere. The left-wing politicians,
on the contrary, offer to increase the assignments for public needs «by
raising the taxes», and as a result they strangle the economy by income-taxes.
And this fuss of so-called «the political process» - consisting in alternately
pulling of a political rope there and back now right, now left and creating
only the visibility of a movement - occurs, basically, because of faulty
income taxation that isn’t giving the enough money to the state budget
for a science, public health services, culture, education, for army, police,
for prisons, for pensions, grants, for house-building, for preservation
of a nature.
But these means can be received by the ecological taxes that - as distinct
from the income taxes - do not reduce profitability of the enterprises
and consequently in the sum on whole country these can be much more than
the sum of income taxation. But so as the ecological taxes would not reduce
the profit of the enterprises but only would raise the price of their production,
forcing the consumers to save, these taxes should be the excise taxes.
That is to say their size should not depend on the price of a taxable product,
otherwise they will be a recurrence of the harmful income taxation.
Thus I offer a system of the taxation which allows to connect the best
parties of socialism and ones of capitalism, excluding the worse parties.
By the way, the famous «Swedish model» tried to achieve the same purpose
- but by the income-taxes - and thereforee has not achieved, has broken37.
FOOTNOT 37: I repeat, the advanced countries somehow solve the problems
and continue to live «richly» - only at the expense of the fast, outstripping
growth of economy. But the growth cannot proceed eternally! It all will
be terminated badly!
Today a common delusion is, as if «the struggle for ecology» requires
the huge expenditure of the budget means. But at use for this purpose of
the ecological taxes it turns out quite the reverse: it can give an enormous
income for the budget!
I emphasize however that the ecological taxes should be levied not from
sale but from output of natural resources. But what do we see today? An
enterprise «Komi-petroleum» has spilled petroleum in tundra, the losses
of petroleum also the penalties for harm caused to nature have reduced
the profit. But if there is no profit - there is no also tax from the profit.
Thus, with income taxation the mismanagement is encouraged by reduction
of the income-tax. No, the tax should be levied not from the profit after
sale of petroleum and not from the sold quantity of petroleum, namely
from quantity of the extracted petroleum. And to be levied at once
as petroleum is extracted from under ground. If you have paid the tax at
once - then the sold petroleum gives all profit only to you, it is unnecessary
to share it with anybody else. Also spilled petroleum and the penalties
are only yours losses but not of the state. With such system the stimulus
is really increased to contain pipelines in the order. But today «Komi-petroleum»,
may be, also receives money to repair others oil pipelines brought by them
to emergency, receives from any of ecological fund, that is to say at the
expense of the different enterprises not guilty in these failures. Also
it is not known what for actually will be spent (and what for were spent
earlier) money, intended for repair.
The solution of ecological problems by the ecological taxes is prompted
by increase of the prices on petroleum 4 times (!) at the time «of a petroleum
crisis» of 1973 that has created a strong stimulus of economy of energy,
subsequently had died away, when the prices, unfortunately, were reduced
again. At the period of high prices the Americans were cooperating and
were coming from suburbs to work in city by four men in one car. Then the
newspapers even were writing that the OPEC countries well have made when
they had inflated the price, as it at last has forced West to save energy.
But such conclusion is as ridiculous as though someone has told: «It
is well that someone have stolen my purse with the salary, as it at last
has forced me to save money». Because inside the country to increase the
price for petroleum 4 times, not waiting the OPEC actions, the governments
of western countries could also - with the aid of excises for production
of petroleum and duties for the import. Thus, the money received from increase
of the prices, would not go away to the petroleum sheiks but would remain
in a treasury and would allow in the same sum for the whole country to
reduce the income taxation: that is to say the taxes from profits of the
enterprises, from earnings of the citizens and all other kinds of the taxes
and deductions proportional to the profit, price or income. The consumers
would begin to save, the demand for petroleum would fall, and the OPEC
countries would appear in a difficult situation and couldn’t already further,
by reducing the extraction, thus to inflate the prices.
But, as I already spoke, radical ideas constitutionally are alien to
the political and scientific establishment, even if they are necessary
for a survival of mankind - because in the beginning they are always unpopular.
New ideas are always put forward and are asserted by the minority,
and the establishment does not support these because it is important for
them to look well in eyes of the majority38.
FOOTNOTE 38: The scientists do not support new ideas also because
they estimate the new by so-called «a criterion INH» - «is Invented Not
Here». Or, as a Gospels personage said, «Can anything good come from Nazareth?».
Rare the scientist would want to connect his name with other's and consequently
«doubtful» new idea by supporting it. If it is not possible to keep silent,
he will reject it without fail - though also will tell any compliment.
By the way. I do not want so as a reader thought, that I am unfriendly
to those authors, which I quote and criticize in this book. On the contrary,
those who speak on the essence of a problem deserve approval - even for
the honesty and boldness. But such authors always risk to be mistaken.
Much worse are those who does not want to risk their «prestige» and therefore
are silent or are escaping with insignificant phrases.
Thus the legal economy will limp because of reduction of its profitability
by the income taxation, the shadow economy (that is avoiding of the taxes)
will have advantage against legal one by demoralizing and criminalizing
a nation, the resources will wasted, the environment will collapse - while
there will be a high income taxation and low prices for energy, resources
and pollution. Therefore I offer to do the reverse: to do the income taxation
low or even zero and - with the aid of the ecological excise-taxes to make
high prices for resources, energy and polluting substances.
This is my idea of revolution in the taxation. At first sight it is
not so impressing as any next revolution in science, technique or medicine
but it is necessary because it is useful and moreover - just it is saving.
I shall try to show more in detail why it is.
Chapter 7. How today try to solve an ecological problem.
The local ecologists, biologists, engineers who develop the ecological
engineering, doctors, forestry experts, ichthyologists - who are anxious
with a condition of the environment in their region - insist that the ecological
taxes be received just by the local budget, into special funds for the
ecological purposes. But it is the same that to crack nuts by a steam-hammer.
As I just now have shown the ecological taxes can have the more important
application.
I deflect the accusation as if the ecological taxes legalize pollution
of environment: as speak, has paid - and may pollute now. The authorities
still have right to regard one pollution as extreme, inadmissible and to
struggle against it by the severe penalties and closing of manufactures
but other pollution to regard as technological, that is accompanying the
manufacture, and to stimulate the reduction it by tax. But for this purpose
the ecological taxes should not be a small local extortion’s but the large
component of all the state budget.
A stimulation of measures preserving nature already is partly applied
- but incorrectly. The stimulation is undderstood - as granting of means
and the tax privileges for the ones who introduces into practice any devices
for cleaning. The activity preserving nature is also estimated by how many
billions monetary units are given for it. But it is necessary to understand
that the means and privileges for originators of pollution actually appear
by encouragement them and at the same time mean additional tax burden,
punishment of those who in any way is not guilty of the given pollution.
If the ecological measures are financed from special local fund which is
filled up at the expense of the penalties and the ecological taxes, the
size of receipts into the fund cannot be coordinated with size of need
in means and with maximum of stimulating influence of the ecological taxes.
And in any case the granted as a gift billions and the privileges disappear
as into a fathomless pit because their addressees are not interested in
so as the invented cleaning devices really effectively worked. On the contrary,
they are interested to receive all new and new means and privileges.
The stimulation should be contrary. As the market economy (that is to
say an economy on a commercial basis) is better than the directive economy,
as the the measures preserving nature on the basis of the commercial profit
is better than the directive measures - on the basis of state assignments,
conditional norms and prohibitions. Therefore - to put the conservation
of environment on a commercial basis - the polluting substances should
be taxed with high tax proportional to the pollution. With high tax - in
order they would have the high profit because of decreasing the tax from
them of in case of decreasing the pollution by them. But consequently,
the profit of the enterprise should not suffer from the tax itself as it
is not always possible to lower the pollution. Hence, the tax should be
levied not as percent from the profit but should be an excise. Excises
that I offer is the determined rate (in roubles) of the tax from each unit
(ton) of a made product or of a scrap.
I am repeating. The size of the ecological tax is established not as
a result of «exact calculations» of inflicted damage to nature. Probably
It is impossible to make such a calculation - but it is unnecessary too.
Because the size of the tax is determined by its purpose. But the purpose
of the tax - the stimulating of enterprises to reduce pollution and to
save resources. From this point of view the size of the tax should be so
high as far as it is possible.
But why such powerful stimulus as the taxes till now almost is not used
for conservation of environment? Because public, journalists, politicians
and even the economists speak about «taxes» in general and about «the harm
of the high taxes» in general, not by understanding that the withdrawn
into income of the budget COMES BACK to a society as expenses of the budget,
and consequently harmful is not withdrawal of taxes but those or others
THE FORMS of taxation also those or others the useless expenditures from
the budget.
What about the form - one thing is the income taxation, that is to say
the percent from complete price of a product (a tax for an turnover, a
tax for sales or for purchases) or the tax from a part of price (a tax
for profit, for salary or for profit and salary together - so-called «the
tax from added cost»39 (FOOTNOTE 39: Usually as «the tax
from added cost» it is incorrectly named that actually is the tax from
sale of the goods and services.) - these taxes, really, reduce percent
of the profit (named as profitability) and thus negatively influence economy.
The taxes from property and the taxes from purchases - also actually are
the income-taxes as the first are more often paid from the incomes of this
property and the second ones - from the price of the goods.
And absolutely other thing is the excises - making lower the consumption
(and consequently the manufacture) of defined goods but not making lower
the profitability of any enterprises and the economy in general. An example:
a prototype of the ecological taxes is the excises for such «the polluting
substances» as alcohol, tobacco and gasoline. Though the excises for these
may be rather high (70% of the price of a packet of cigarettes in France
is a tax) but the profitability of the appropriate manufactures is not
impaired by it at all.
All this can be understood very easily, if a desire would be. But the
point is that the establishment prefers to moralize - by raising their
own «prestige» - instead of to offer the radical, revolutionary - and therefore
unpopular - tax measures. British prince Charles is calling upon «to establishing
the new ethical attitudes in economic activity». In his opinion,
only these are capable to ensure effective conservation of environment.
Also Mendeleyev - though a hundred years back - was speaking, that to use
petroleum (the valuable chemical raw materials) as a fuel - is the same
that to heat by bank-notes burning.
But it is silly to reproach people with greed - it is necessary to turn
their greed for the society benefit. It is time to understand, that to
exhort the economy to not destroy environment and to save resources is
ridiculous just as to exhort the economy to make beautiful and good products.
It is necessary to talk to economy in language of economy. That is to say
it is necessary to make so that the economic benefit would push - not to
destruction of environment but to preservation it. So as the excises from
extracted resources and the produced polluting substances WERE GREAT, they
should be entered not as addition but INSTEAD OF the taxes for the
profit, for turnover, for added cost and for personal incomes. The highest
and, hence, the most effectuve ecological taxes it will be excises
equal in sum in whole the country to all present taxes and completely replacing
these. Thus, with transition from the income taxation to ecological ones
the total tax burden will not increase and, hence, there will not be any
damage to economy and to standard of living. The capital investment into
ecological measures will become profitable therefore the necessity to allocate
on them large means from the budget will disappear, the enterprises will
find means for these, as now they find means for any investments giving
profit.
But also for economy the ecological taxes are the better than the income
ones.
Chapter 8. How it is more rational to impose taxes on «rich men».
The sense of economic activity - and especially the sense of perfecting
it - consists in obtaining the benefit, the profit; this sense is lost
at all if the income does not exceed the expenses on manufacture. But,
unfortunately, the taxation is understood and exists everywhere as the
income
taxation, that is to say, a percent from profit, income or price
of the goods - as the percent that lower the profitability. For this reason
the modern «social» states, as they sweat over, cannot solve a problem:
how by not suppressing the economy by the taxes but at the same time to
ensure to the budget the income necessary for performance of the extensive
social programs. Meanwhile the decision of a problem is obvious: the taxes
should not be the taxes from the profit, from the income. Therefore Margaret
Tatcher tried to establish the poll-tax and because of this had lost the
post. Also therefore already in many countries the taxes from the incomes
partially have replaced by the taxes from consumption - «by the taxes from
purchases». But these taxes too depend on the price and stimulate reduction
of any consumption without distinction and sense. But it is necessary to
concentrate the stimulating influence of taxes on reduction of consumption
just of those goods, the manufacture of which harms to the environment
and requires the large energy consumption and of the drained resources.
Therefore not the taxes from purchases, namely ecological taxes and namely
excises - not depending from the price - should replace the present income
taxation.
The many usually object against a cancellation of income-taxes because
the rich, as speak, should pay more taxes than the poor. Let us assume
that it is correct. But at the income-taxes system is considered as rich
and is taxed by the higher taxes who works more effectively and consequently
earns more. That is to say the income taxation actually is a punishment
for more successful activity. But it is unfair and consequently harmfully
for a society.
At the taxation system offered by me and based not on income principle
but on ecological one - it will be possible completely to release all citizens
and enterprises (apart from the enterprises that make polluting substances
or extract resources) from all direct taxes apart from land tax (land is
the major natural resource too). The extracting enterprises (mines, oil-gas-extracting
enterprises, loggings) and enterprises that make polluting substances (chemical,
metallurgical and some other factories, nuclear and thermal power stations)
- will pay the high ecological taxes (exccises). But their profitability
will not suffer from it at all. I already gave an example with production
of alcohol and tobacco. Any manufacturers do not suffer from the excise
taxes in general, as they for the sum of the taxes raise the price of the
product, actually shifting these taxes to the consumers of a final product.
But it should be: «to suffer» from the ecological taxes it should be the
consumer for whom the ecology-dangerous product is made. With the excise
ecological taxation the rich people too will be - indirectly, through the
increased prices - to pay higher taxes than the poor but thus they any
more will not be punished for they work more effective and consequently
more earn but they will be punished for they more consume, live on a lavish
scale. And just in that degree are punished, in what degree the industry,
satisfying their need, exhausts the important resources and pollutes environment.
I heard an objection: «But this is unfair! For example, an owner of
a casino receives huge profit. Whether to release him, as well as the all
others, from the tax for this profit?!» I answered that the size of the
profit of a gambling house is difficult for supervising, it is better to
take the firm rate - for a license. But if you are worried that someone
receives super-profit you may place another two gambling houses side by
side. Then competition will force the owner to lower profit to not lose
the clients. In general, to struggle with excessive riches it should not
suppress a business by taxes, instead of it is necessary to conduce to
amplification of the competition.
Sometimes are asking: how specifically can the sizes of the ecological
taxes be established? Very simply, approximately in such a way that the
sizes of all kinds of the income taxation are established today. At first
the size of an expense part of the budget is being defined as the sum under
all clauses of the expenses. The budget should be balanced, that is to
say the income volume consisting of the various tax duties, should be equal
to the expenditure volume. If the expenditure volume of the budget in comparison
with the last year is increased by any sum, they look what taxes and how
much may be increased to collect the given added sum. It is possible to
establish new taxes, for example, ecological, but old taxes may be reduced
at appropriate size. For example, a price of petroleum in the market is
20 dollars for a barrel. As the beginning we shall establish the ecological
tax at a rate of 5 dollars for extraction of every barrel of petroleum.
By a similar way we shall establish the taxes for extracting gas, various
ores, for felling of wood. And if the extracted simultaneous gas is not
used but is burnt in a torch, the tax for its extraction is necessary to
pay too. Also if woods have been cut down, for example, on place of a future
storage lake, and the wood is not used and is left there to rot, the tax
for cutting down all the same must be paid plus a penalty for the pollution.
We shall consider expedient for the present to not tax the production of
coal. Let’s establish the certain taxes for emissions by large chimneys
also for the harmful drains from the enterprises and for production of
each ton of different chemical substances: fertilizers, pesticides, freons
and other dangerous products and wastes: for more harmful substance - the
tax is larger too. Let's establish the duties to import of the same resources
and chemical products so as the import products have not made the becoming
dearer domestic products noncompetitive. It is possible to count how much
money all these new taxes and the duties will give to the budget. Let's
decide as far as now it is possible to reduce different kinds of the income
taxation so that the budget has remained balanced. The next years the various
ecological taxes can in a different degree be increased, and the income
taxes can be reduced - up to its complete cancellation. Probably it will
be necessary to increase pensions and grants in view of a rise in price
of energy. The fears, that the ecological (indirect) taxes will be heavy
burden, basically, for working people, are not well-founded. If the taxes
will increase - the salary soon will increase too because actually the
clean
salary is being determined not by someone's arbitrariness but by supply
and demand for work of the given qualification40.
FOOTNOTE 40: Even at the communist times, when, it would seem, the
market laws should not work, it were possible to read such an announcement:
«A carpenter Is required for a post of a senior economist» (the citation
is taken from a column «You cannot think up it purposely» in a magazine
«The Crocodile weekly»).
Thus, by not reducing profitability, the ecological excises will raise
the price of a product made by an ecology-dangerous technology, hence,
will reduce demand for this product - for the benefit of alternative products
and technologies. The application of harmful products (for example, the
freons, destroying the protective ozone layer of an atmosphere) and harmful
technologies will be decreasing and application of alternative products
and technologies - will be increasing. . But a positive influence of the
ecological taxes isn’t exhausted by it.
Chapter 9. The decision of economic problems.
The replacement of the income taxation by the ecological excises will
allow forever to decide a problem of the state budget deficiency being
the main reason of inflation. Because it is the income taxation that creates
instability of economy. Because the increase - in case of necessity - of
the income-taxes reduces the profitability of enterprises, the enterprises
suffer crash, are being closed, the unemployment is increasing, an income
of the state budget is decreasing - because - at the income taxation -
it is proportional to the profits of enterprises and to the earnings of
citizens. But meanwhile the expenses of state are increasing - as it is
necessary to pay the allowances to the unemployed. The state becomes compelled
to raise the taxes again or «to switch on the printing machine». Thus the
economy is being worsened like an avalanche.
The ecological excises can give the much more income into the budget
than the income taxation gives, not causing at the same time of the described
above negative by-effects. Therefore there will be an opportunity to cancel
and all payments for social maintenance that the businessmen are now obliged
to do for each employed worker. It will help considerably to reduce unemployment
by development of the small enterprises. Because it is the numerous small
business that is the basic employer. In the USA the small business gives
75 % of a total product of the country. But the small businessmen are held
back from hiring the assistants and are forced to manage with help only
of members of the family - basically, by the obligatory payments for social
insurance and the pension maintenance - one more component in the sum of
the excessive income taxation.
The high incomes of the budget as a result of the ecological taxes will
give also opportunity to make free the urban and suburban public transport,
and it, together with a rise in price of fuel, will reduce usage of the
personal vehicles also air pollution and road jams in cities.
The income taxation should be liquidated also because it generates cynicism
in relation to the law, corrupts, criminalizes the whole nations, because
actually gives advantage to the shadow economy (that is to say to the economy
that hides from the taxes) and to criminal activity - because that and
another becomes free from the taxation unlike the lawful activity. It come
to work fairly it becomes not simply unprofitable but even impossible.
It is no wonder that, for example, in Sweden, where the income-taxes are
great especially, complain that the economy is worsening, and the former
industrious and honest Swedes are becoming lazy dodgers who evinces the
initiative basically at unofficial work. The sum of the small left incomes
for 1996 in Sweden has come to 10 billions crones. At 1997 everyone eighth
worked on the side, in result the Swedish state has received 40 billions
crones less of taxes.
How it occurs - «the Laffer’s diagram» shows it visually:
.
.
It is visible from the diagram that the incomes (profit) subjected to the
taxation (upper inclined line), and the incomes presented to the taxation
(the lowest inclined line) fall with growth of percent of the tax from
a profit. Also the sector of shadow economy and the state expenses for
struggle against it (between these lines) grows accordingly. Also the lower
convex curve shows that the income into the budget from collecting the
taxes from profit is not increasing almost when the tax achieves 35% of
the profit size, and when the tax achieves over 50% the income into the
budget even is decreasing. Thus the clean (after the taxes are paid) lawful
earnings (a vertical arrow in the middle) is being decreased disastrously
so the legal economic activity sheerly loses sense.
Today the income taxation and especially the progressively-income taxation
are widespread, basically, because of ridiculous socialist anti-market
notion that it is possible to take away, «to redistribute», «to equalize»
incomes. But actually the clean average salary of the worker (with the
deduction of all taxes) is being determined by supply and demand to work
of the given qualification. The worker all the same will have got the due,
and the increased tax actually is being paid not by him but the employer
which thus actually is being punished for hiring the worker of high qualification
and is being forced to manage the more mediocre workers. Thus because of
the income-taxes established for the sake of illusion the economy is suffering,
that is to say we all.
The opinion, as if the income taxation is necessary for reduction of
a social inequality, is incorrect as well because the help to needy can
be rendered directly, but it is not obligatory by means of the lower taxation
for them. For example, in the USA for needy there is a help by money, food
coupons, by partial payment of home. On the contrary, the ecological excises
will allow the budget to receive the greater income than now as the excises
have not the enumerated above harmful by-effects of the income taxation.
It means a state will have more money for the social purposes. There will
be an opportunity to establish a new form of social maintenance - the guaranteed
income41 that will become partial or complete replacement of
all numerous kinds of grants, pensions and will be paid to all the citizens
irrespective of the other incomes. The similar system already exists in
rich with petroleum Alaska - there each inhabitant receives «bonus» equal
1000 dollars per one year - and in some states of a Persian gulf.
FOOTNOTE 41: Among the supporters of establishing the guaranteed
income it is possible to name the economists Milton Freedman, James Towin,
a congressman Melvin Lard and the others.
I want to prevent an incomprehension able to arise. Whether my phrase
«the average salary contradicts is being determined by a supply and demand
on the work, the worker all the same will have got the due» - to other
my statement that «the income taxation actually is the punishment for more
successful activity»? No, does not contradict. Because in the first case
the question is about the AVERAGE salary (or profit). But when the talented
worker or businessman, by improving technology or organization of business,
receive the income ABOVE THE AVERAGE, just then the taxation punishes them
because it is the INCOME taxation, and it is even worse if it is the progressively-income
taxation.
Also there is no contradiction and between two other statements. Between
the stimulating influence of the new taxes and that, as I have told, «the
profitability does not suffer because of the ecological taxes at
all because the tax is shifted to the consumers of the product». Yes, it
is shifted but only if the consumption of resources and the pollution (in
a unit of product) - are within Of AVERAGE for similar manufactures. If
these parameters above average, the enterprise will be punished
by increase of the ecological taxes. And it any more can not shift the
increasing of the tax on the consumers by raising the price of the product
even more. Because then its product, being found more expensive than average
level, will become noncompetitive.
What the ecological taxes will give to the ordinary people? Probably,
will give much. Imagine: all citizens and almost all enterprises (apart
from the enterprises making the polluting substances also extracting resources)
are released from all direct taxes apart from land tax. The land is a natural
resource too, the rent from land should come to the state, and the land
tax should be high - so as an owner would use the land the most effectively,
instead of would sit on the land like a dog on hay. The huge means will
be saved on simplification of the tax service. An economist B. Pinsker
wrote: «The Tax Code of USA before the tax reform of 1986 it was 9 volumes
of total about 10 thousands pages. A result: in a national economy of the
USA more than a half of a million lawyers, the experts who engaged for
searching of the loop-holes in the tax laws». Also in Russia 40 thousands
people in the tax service and also 180 thousands in the tax police are
engaged. Will disappear the necessity for bringing (by the tax police)
the law-obedience up the millions tax bearers hourly being corrupted by
the system of income-taxes.
Though it is necessary to transgress the liberal-democratic dogma that
asserts that «the indirect taxes are characteristic for the undemocratic
states but the direct taxes (read: the income-taxes) is an attribute of
the democratic state». Ostensibly at the indirect taxes system the citizens
cannot know how much they pay and what for their money is spent. Here a
reason and a consequence are confused. Quite the reverse, democracy allows
without harm to establish the indirect taxes as democracy provides a control
over the actions of authorities.
The countries before others having replaced the income taxation with
the ecological one will obtain an advantage before other countries and
will shoot up forward in economy, though the main sense of the replacement
- is creation of strong stimulus to save energy, resources and to reduce
the pollution. Having introduced the economic and of ecological technologies
and products the enterprises will receive a large gain from reduction of
the rather high ecological taxes directly or indirectly levied from them.
The increase, with the aid of these taxes, prices for resources and energy
will create also opportunity with benefit to use wastes and alternative
sources of energy. Using these, when the present prices for resources and
energy are low, is economically unprofitable and for this reason practically
is absent, despite of diligence of the developers and enthusiasts of the
ecological technologies.
Certainly, as the energy-economizing, resource-economizing and ecological
way of living and managing will being introduced, the budget income from
the ecological taxes will being reduced. Therefore the state shall raise
the rates of the ecological taxes. However total sum of these taxes can
remain constant. The increase little by little of rates of the ecological
taxes will by additional stimulus for the enterprises to keep up with others
at introduction the measures preserving nature and economizing technologies.
The stimulating influence of the ecological taxes is similar to the
classical mechanism of stimulation of a capitalist by profit. One businessman
introduce a certain improvement, the innovation and thus he increases the
profit. But others little by little introduce the same innovations, and
as a result of competition their profit is falling up to a former level.
However a deed is made - the perfection has taken place. Exactly as the
reduction by an enterprise of pollution or economy by them of the resources
reduces the ecological taxes levied from them. But others aspire to introduce
and little by little they introduce the same improvements. The sum of the
taxes coming into the budget has decreased. Then the state raises the rate
of the taxes, restoring the coming sum. The benefit being received by the
enterprises from introduced by them the cleaning technologies and economy
of resources is being reduced to zero. However a deed is made - the perfection
of manufacturing has taken place. Then the cycle is repeating.
Thus the replacement of the income taxation with the ecological ones
will allow quickly to solve ecological, economic and social problems, but,
I repeat, to solve only temporarily, it will give to mankind a respite
to have time to cope with the overpopulation problem. Because for painless
reduction of a population 10 times it is necessary about 300 years. If
the demographic problem in the meantime will not be decided, the improvement
of conditions of living as a result of replacement of the income taxation
with the ecological one will result in new increase of birth-rate. As I
spoke, this law of spontaneous development is already noticed by demographers:
as soon as in any country with low birth-rate - that is to say with so-called
«the controllable birth rate» - the economic situation improves and the
level of the incomes has risen, the birth-rate at once rises too. Because
this «birth-rate control» actually means only: if I want - I limit myself
with one child but if I want - I shall have two, three, four children,
if I consider that my means allow it..
But two children on family means preservation of the present excessive
population with all the present and approaching disasters because of it.
And three children on family it is also preservation of present growth
of the population with doubling of the population each 50 years (see a
diagram in the first chapter).
But I hear again:
- What «a noosphere»? What such a mind? You offer the artificial decrease
of birth-rate by any economic stimuli coming from a state. No, it is not
suitable for us. It does not go!
- Well, - I answer, - but it means the population number also subsequently
shall be adjusted by a natural way - that is to say by famine, need, by
disorder or intensity of life, by ecological disasters, illnesses, criminality,
by wars and by totalitarian violence - as it was during centuries and as
it occurs now. And if it will be possible to eliminate, say, such the disasters-regulators
as famine and the wars, accordingly it will be amplified the others - for
example, ecological disasters and totalitarian violence. You have chosen
it.
14.6.1998
.