Unfavorable ecology

We usually understand the concept of ecology in several senses, as a science that studies the relationship of organisms and as a principle in our actions aimed at preserving nature. In other cases, when I say ecology, I mean natural nature, which is not influenced by humans.

Science does not prescribe any mandatory actions for us, it only predicts the consequences of our actions. Thanks to such predictions, we can create technologies that make our lives easier and, we can say, benefit some of us. As for the regulations, that is, prohibitions to do anything, it is under the jurisdiction of the state and the general opinion of the people, one can say ethics, but not rational science. Science provides knowledge, but how to use it, a person decides for himself how he sees fit, that is, the most useful for himself and hopefully for others.

Public opinion and state will

Modern public opinion has absorbed the scientific worldview and public policy is for the most part consistent with a rational scientific worldview, at least where it is useful to it. But we are still far from benefiting from the predictions of ecology as a science, since taking into account these predictions, unlike following and using predictions from other sciences, does not bring profit, does not cause the same attention and general respect as, for example, achievements in space.

The government can or at least should depend on public opinion. This opinion is formed by solving certain problems in society, which sometimes the government itself creates. But environmental problems are created not by someone in particular in power, but by a lot of people or sometimes by natural processes in nature itself. That nature itself, that people, for the most part, act in such a way as to survive, to provide for themselves. And we are not able to completely limit people, just as we are able to stop natural processes, for example, leading to fires and other environmental disasters, but we are able to influence them, bring these impacts to a certain extent, first of all by making efforts to these problems, financing the solution of these problems.

But to solve many of them on a long-term basis, a specific state will is needed. Government officials usually do not suffer from environmental problems, as they can afford to be away from the immediate environmental problem, or for some other reason not consider it such. But it is difficult to convince those people who are directly affected by this or that environmental problem that everything is fine. Since such phenomena are observed and directly felt in the purity of water and air, which affects both comfort and human health. And therefore, it would be nice to find and create ways to influence those who create these problems or at least do not prevent them.

But generally speaking, in matters of ecology, it is not right to turn to personal experience, which is why it is a science, since it reveals hidden relationships between living organisms. So we may not see the problem from one or another of our influences here and now. In this direction, knowledge of ecology must be consistently implemented, just like knowledge from other sciences, in all our environmental impacts. So the withdrawal of something from it must be calculated with all possible consequences.

An ethical approach

In order to solve environmental problems in practice, we must adhere not only to a scientific, but also to an ethical approach. This means that we must not only have knowledge of how to act, but also the conviction that it is the right way to act and, as a result, condemn all those who violate the principles we have accepted.

In this regard, everyone can have their own opinion about how acceptable the general or its own impact on the environment is, therefore, there must be some kind of body that would determine the admissibility of this impact.

But if it existed, obviously its simplest solution would be to ban any of our effects on nature, I don’t think many would willingly follow such a ban. And whatever happens, this body should depend on the general opinion of people who would vote for certain proposed solutions.

In these matters, we will not be mistaken if we are as democratic as possible, since the more opinions of different people are gathered, the more likely it is that we will come to a correct and independent decision regarding one or another activity that negatively affects the environment. Since usually those who profit from the impact on nature are in the minority relative to the rest of the majority.

We are forced to resort to prohibitions, since environmental problems directly stem from our activities, which we should learn to limit and control, just as we directly control the activities themselves that bring us material benefits. So that all this material benefit from scientific and technological progress does not turn into harm for us.

The ecology is unprofitable

If we are guided solely by the benefits, then knowledge of ecology will be almost useless, if not even harmful. And if it is somehow possible to find long-term benefits in ecology, then from the point of view of the immediate benefit, namely, it is guided by the majority in the modern economy, ecology is unprofitable both as a science and as a principle, because by prohibiting, these principles simply prevent this benefit from being received.

The fact is that a modern ecologist can act not so much as a defender of the principles of ecology, but at best an additional bureaucratic wire, and at worst a person who will intentionally justify certain negative impacts on the environment. Yes, someday it will turn out that he was wrong, but as long as he is interested in receiving a salary from his clients who are interested in circumventing environmental regulations, we will receive the appropriate result.

Perhaps you will say that there are already a lot of organizations, institutions and environmentalists who generally do their job properly and if you listen to them, then everything is more or less good locally. But these will probably be the same paid environmentalists, listen to you environmentalists who talk a little more globally, you will understand that all modern measures in this direction are globally far from what really needs to be done.

But perhaps we will find a solution from a business point of view, so it will be beneficial for some entrepreneurs to create various kinds of resorts, the ecological purity of which will differ favorably from other places. But the problem here is that this approach always implies the existence of other places that will no longer be a resort and they will have environmental problems. Europe is such a resort today in many ways, we can say that such an exclusively market approach, when people choose to live where they feel good, is better than nothing, nevertheless it does not solve the problem globally.

Ecology and the State

In theory, ecology should be supported by the state, since traditionally it is the state, as the most powerful subject of law, that is capable of prohibiting anything under penalty of punishment. But justice in itself should be beneficial for the state and for any government in general. Since it usually remains such a power, as long as the supreme justice benefits from the inner peace achieved thereby.

But since the principles of ecology are often reduced to not using resources or using them more complexly, they become unprofitable in themselves, the only remaining factor that can influence the government is public opinion, which shares the value of ecology for the most part.

And if society is dissatisfied with the actions of a profit-making minority and at the same time incomparable environmental damage to all, then we again come to the conclusion that it must develop mechanisms limiting the actions of this minority. In essence, it should be the same democracy, but only in a broader and one can say truly working sense of it, when the majority really has the opportunity to influence the laws passed in the state.

Traditionally, such mechanisms are provided by the modern state. And at the same time, it is usually the case that all of them work rather for the benefit of the state, in which people whom the state restricts and forces to do certain things are the silent source of this benefit.

Any fine is the same benefit for the budget and, in theory, their application solves the problem. But in practice, this is not very effective, since punishment for environmental damage is difficult to assess and somehow formalize, since each violation is essentially unique and has its own negative value, you can cut down a common tree, or you can cut down the last remaining one of its kind, etc. And the very fixation of the violation is at the discretion of the finer, whose activities, like the activities of any official, are difficult to control, so that he really struggled with the violation, and did not earn on this right, in other words, did not take bribes. A bribe or even a fine issued may be covered by the profit from a particular violation occurring systematically and as a result causing the greatest damage.

Thus, the environment is put in a risky position of dependence on the activities of a civil servant and, as a result, the effectiveness of the entire state apparatus. So our intention to preserve the environment goes through a long chain from choosing the right government, which may not pay much attention to the environment, especially if there are more important problems. Next, this government hires a competent minister, then the head of the department, his deputies, etc. Such bureaucratic chains are ineffective, but inevitable in modern states that do not have any other means of feedback.

Here we find a more general problem in the work of all regulatory authorities, in that it is almost impossible to control their activities themselves, unless there is another controller who would follow on their heels and control how the first one controls, etc. In the OM system, there will be private certifying organizations in this regard, in which, due to competition between them, they will value their reputation and therefore will create all conditions for real, not nominal control to take place.

But control will also take place by society itself as a whole, regardless of the activity of the individual assigned to this person. This will be possible in the OM system, due to the openness of all commodity-money relations. In which the sale or use of any illegally extracted resource will be visible. Any such activity harmful to the environment can be stopped by imposing a ban or additional taxes on it. In a closed system, it will be impossible to avoid or dodge this, at least all these possibilities will be worked out and eliminated along the way by changing certain algorithms of the system.

Simply put, in order to fundamentally solve the problem of punishment control, it must be done so that its solution minimally depends on the will of any individual, but is eliminated if only, according to the general opinion of the majority, it seems unfair and harmful.

Who needs ecology?

You will probably ask, but who will need this ecology? To me, and I will not be original if I say that everyone judges everything by themselves, and therefore I am sure that there are such people and their majority. In general, if you think about it, then without the preservation of nature, it is almost impossible to preserve life and as a result, our very life loses its meaning.

And I do not propose to abandon material well-being in general, but only to correct the situation when the preservation of the well-being of a minority prevents humanity from living in harmony with nature and generally somehow survive on our planet at least until we can populate others.

Conclusions

I made a general overview of environmental problems and indicated that its principles are not beneficial for the modern economy, and then the state, which is guided primarily by its own immediate benefit, cannot succeed in solving these problems.

I, and I think you, would like to choose strictly between progress and the associated well-being and conservation of nature. To do this, society must be organized in such a way that following the principles of ecology is certainly beneficial. For such a device, an OM system is being created, in the implementation of which you can take a direct part.