For a long time, I thought that we have to separate #socialjustice issues from #environmental and #sustainability issues in order to solve either.

I thought all of these were too complex in themselves, and entangling them would complicate the solutions even more.

I now think I was wrong. Environmental and sustainability issues ARE social justice issues. What's more, I don't believe an unjust society can ever be sustainable.

So it's a choice between justice or judgment day.

In my view, #humanity is in the grip of a two-pronged problem:

1. unsustainable use of the #Earth and its resources
2. #technology constantly increases the powers of the few.

These processes feed each other: more powerful technologies enable more #exploitation, and exploitation increases pressures to compete with more powerful technologies.

As a result, the Earth-system's margins of safety erode, and cascading disasters become more likely by day.

This vicious cycle has to be broken before it breaks our human #civilization .

I've given the matter considerable thought yet haven't found durable solutions - except one:

distribution of #power .

To stop the cycles of exploitation and prevent new ones,

1. No being should have so little power that exploiting them is easy;
2. No being should have so much power that exploiting others is easy.

In other words, I believe #democracy is THE answer.

Every alternative to #democracy requires steep #hierarchy - some beings having unilateral power to make decisions over others.

And then we're back at the problem of benevolent dictatorship: they invariably become mere dictatorships in short order.

What's more, a hierarchical society incentivises #competition .

Hierarchies force everyone to compete. Either for a higher position, or to avoid losing position: in a hierarchy, those at the bottom are at the mercy of the more powerful.

The steeper the hierarchies, the greater the rewards for the winners of the competition... and the greater the penalties for the losers.

Over time, this tends to make existing hierarchies even steeper. And competition more cutthroat.

In a world where infectious horsepox can already be assembled from mail-order RNA for $100 000 or less, cutthroat competition WILL lead to a disaster.

And #technology marches on. While #environmental margins of safety erode.

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-canadian-researchers-reconstituted-extinct-poxvirus-100000-using-mail-order-dna

The ONLY truly #sustainable solution for this two-pronged problem is, I firmly believe, #democracy .

Share #power and #resources fairly and equitably.

THEN it may be possible to set safe, universally respected #limits to the use of powerful technologies and finite resources.

Because only fair, democratic sharing

a. reduces the pressure to compete, and
b. gives those in danger of being exploited enough power and resources to defend themselves.

@rmattila74 Yes - taxation and redistribution would be the perfect way to share economic power more equitably.

I also greatly prefer market-based solutions over more clunky forms of service provision IF the differences in purchasing power aren't too great.

More wealth that goes to incentivise destructive activities and competition almost certainly hurts more than helps at this point. But poor countries need more.

@rmattila74 There are times when hierarchies are very useful, even essential. Innovation can be one of them.

But I'm certain we have to find a solution that doesn't just throw hands in the air and permit individuals and small groups amass immense economic #power beyond democratic control. The risks are just too great.

I can think of a few ideas, and would love to hear more, and feedback:

@rmattila74
One idea that comes to mind was presented by Joel Bakan in The Corporation: operating permits for corporations.

Corporations were originally conceived as entities with more clearly defined goals and a fixed lifetime.

The big problem with big corporations is that they've escaped their restrictions: they can be effectively immortal, and can amass massive economic (and political, sometimes even military) power. That and the pursuit of profit make them very dangerous "slow AIs".

@rmattila74 A publicly traded corporation is generally _required_, by law, to do what it can to increase the profits of its shareholders.

In some jurisdictions like the U.S., the shareholders can successfully sue if the corporation limits its profit-seeking.

Thus we already have unleashed the "paperclip maximizers" that AI researchers fear we'd unleash.

Operating permits and stronger sanctions for badly behaving corporations could help.

@rmattila74 Bakan for instance calls for the "death penalty" for corporations: the laws required to dismantle rogue corporations do exist, but the courts would need to implement them more often, "pour encourager les autres."

But obviously that is hard as long as big corporations have the resources and the incentives to influence politics!