There are two individuals with whom I should be friends. Both are campaigning to save the planet, ensuring that the vulnerable do not suffer. So do I, but we disagree sharply as to how. Who has a blind spot, me or them?
Claiming to be Asperger’s (like Greta), it seems obvious to me a) that we need a catalyst such as a universal basic income (UBI), and b) that Population Matters are allies, with common aims. Sandy Irvine does not accept a), and Nanette Yousseff disagrees with b). I must stress that they have no connection with each other.
In correspondence Sandy approves of a UBI as reducing inequality and removing the poverty trap, which makes his hostility to it extremely puzzling when I hope for his help in publicising the principle in the more important context of saving the ecosphere. I agree with every word in his weblog.
Sandy says that the word ‘recession’ is a put off. It is, as things stand. Sandy has a much firmer grasp of detail than me. But am I deluded in my claim that if tied to the eco-threat, the UBI makes possible the necessary mind set change to a sustainable economy? I even recognize the danger of the UBI encouraging consumerism if not so tied (as Sandy warns).
I formed a mistaken impression that Sandy had a practical plan for negotiating the transition to sustainability. What he did write was that the UBI would only play a minor part in any such plan alongside many other ideas
I can see two (to me ‘obvious’) reasons why no such plan ever emerged: denial by those making profits, and my assumption (not a ‘belief’) that the transition will be very difficult without some sort of catalyst. Am I seeing things, or could this be a blind spot on Sandy’s part?
In the Korean war, General MacArthur invaded the North at Inchon, because he correctly guessed that his conventionally minded enemies would regard it as impossible. It is this kind of thinking which prompted Greta T to sit, alone, outside Parliament. Neither of her parents, nor anyone from her class supported her,
Many critics pf the film Planet of the Humans seem to assume that the transition will be much easier than Michael Moore or I think likely. Why did such a transition not start immediately after the 1972 MIT warning?
Sandy comments on the film in his blog), but Covid19 ruthlessly shows that the ecosphere can be saved, if we accept a depression deep enough, and long enough. A manageable voluntary recession may have been possible in 1972, but starting in 2020, I fail to see any plan which (our real) enemies would not immediately call a recession. Not flying, cycling instead of a car etc etc.. . .? A whole swathe of ‘wealth producing’ industries will be decimated, either by agreement, or by accident. To me a guarantee of income is essential. No previous recession has featured a basic income. Which of us has a blind spot?
But to be honest, my main worry is the minority who do agree with me, The logic for me is that if my view is right, the basic income needs screaming from the house tops. On that I seem to be as alone as was Greta at first. Not yet having been catapulted to Davos, perhaps the blind spot is indeed mine.
At least I accept Sandy’s good faith. We are buddies as compared to Nanette Yousseff, of Bright Green, who re-published material smearing Population Matters which had previously been retracted as libellous. Mind you, without help, I couldn’t find the retraction on their website .
Unlike with Sandy, I do not agree with everything Bright Green says, but I do share their condemnation of capitalism. Their blind spot is in not understanding the implications of the exponential principle when limits to growth have been (b)reached.
Please look at Sandy’s blog as to why limiting numbers must be an issue if we are to save the ecosphere – for the poor.