Reciprocity – Like Water to Fish, Part Six

Bob Fiske

Reciprocity – Like Water to Fish, Part Six

CLICK HERE to go to Part Five

The Idea. Everything I have written so far has been a preamble to a simple idea.  Here it is: NOBILITY IS THE ABILITY TO GIVE SOMETHING OF VALUE WITHOUT RECEIVING ANYTHING IN EXCHANGE.

This is a very restricted definition of the words “noble” or “nobility”.  (Go ahead, look them up.  I did.)  In spite of this selective use of the term, almost every person to whom I have offered this definition seems to understand it.  This appears to be a self-evident idea to a lot of people.

Let’s take the idea one step further.  If we have built an economic system predicated on the preservation of reciprocity, could we build an alternate economic system based upon its opposite?  This is what I am proposing that we do.

The rewards for doing so would be twofold.  First, this alternate economy would allow us to reclaim a part of our humanity that has been allowed (some might say forced) to atrophy.  Currency, as it turns out, is an effective means of conditioning us to accept and use certain values.  Conventional monetary currency enforces values and behaviors consistent with taking, amassing and hoarding.  That is because the value of money is measured by how much of it you have.  Alternatively, a different kind of currency, one based on the value of giving rather than getting, would shape a set of behaviors that monetary currency tends to suppress.

To elaborate, I often hear people who are not “wealthy” (by current society’s standards) criticize people who have a great deal of money.  The term they use many times is “greedy”.  This is an easy trap into which one might fall, one that I even find myself falling into now and then.  However, there is a different way to narrate a story that contrasts the “haves” and the “have-nots”.

I find it plausible to regard wealthy people as not greedy.  The vast majority of them did not set out to become successful at a skill named greed.  They probably wanted to achieve a sense of self-worth, or maybe they wanted to achieve high esteem in the eyes of others, or maybe they wanted to be comfortable, or maybe they simply had a knack for amassing money in some fashion.  These people do not wake up in the morning and thank the Lord for making them greedy.

Instead, let us imagine that “wealthy” people were handed a tool set for achieving goals.  Included in this tool set was a deep value of reciprocity and a monetary currency that would provide an external measure of value.  Guess what?  The tools you have go a long way in determining how you proceed to solve life’s problems!  If you were to give people a different tool set (based on giving rather than getting), you would see a lot of behaviors that the current economic system does not nurture.

The second reward of establishing a non-reciprocity-based currency or economy is more speculative.  By engaging in acts of nobility, I believe that we will naturally begin to repay the numerous and substantial loans that we have taken from the earth and its inhabitants.  Can I guarantee such an outcome?  Of course not.  However, the exploration that I undertook to question our dominant value system and propose an alternative was clearly motivated (in my mind, at least).  I recognized that something in our value system and economic system was preventing us from acting faithfully toward our true benefactor, the earth (and the systems of nature that are so plentiful upon it).  Therefore, I propose this “new economy” with a clearly stated goal of repairing the earth and reshaping each human being into a willing and good steward of the earth’s welfare.

In short, living according to a noble value system will accomplish two lofty goals at the same time: generosity and sustainability.  An interesting side-effect might also occur, namely, an enhancement of self-worth.  A monetary economic system rewards you for creating external evidence of accomplishment.  A generosity-based economic system has an internal source for self-worth, one that is intrinsic to the act of giving.  Generosity makes people feel good about their actions and about themselves.

The Noble: A New Unit of Currency.  Suppose the idea of nobility mentioned above were converted into a new kind of currency.  This unit of currency would represent giving and generosity, not taking and accumulating “wealth”.  So, if people adopted this unit of currency, the idea would be to give it away.  This, of course, stands in stark contrast to the form of currency being used today in which the goal is to amass as much of it as possible.

I have decided to call this new unit of currency “The Noble”.  This reflects the intention behind its use, namely, to act nobly by giving instead of getting.  Here is an early concept that I created to demonstrate the idea.

This is a two-sided card.  (If you imagine folding the card along the middle vertical line, you’ll see that the right and left parts end up on either side of the card.)  The front shows the unit of currency and paraphrases its meaning as the idea of doing a favor for someone.

The back side of the card is labeled “PAY IT FORWARD”.  The idea of paying it forward is growing more common in American parlance.  The idea, though not original with her, was popularized by Catherine Ryan Hyde in the novel Pay It Forward in 2000, and later in a movie based on the book.  Many people who have spoken or written about the pay-it-forward idea think of it simply as passing on a deed of kindness to someone else.  This is accurate, although my use of the idea fits into a somewhat larger view that rests on an understanding of a value system.

The reason for the pay-it-forward idea on the Noble currency is to offset a common response to doing something in the spirit of generosity.  Many of us react to an act of kindness done to us by wanting to repay the favor.  This is exactly in line with the dominant system of reciprocity that I have been discussing.  However, if the goal is to establish a new value system as an alternative to reciprocity, then the recipient of the favor must resist the urge to repay.

The back of the card is a reminder that an appropriate response to receiving a kindness from a person is to pay it forward.  Do a kindness for somebody else.  This is how we break the cycle of reciprocity that has been so effectively programmed into our psyches.  You will notice, then, that the card is first given by Nancy to Sarah.  At some later point in time, Sarah passes the card to Ellen.  Later, Ellen does the same thing, and so on.

Summary of Part Six.  NOBILITY IS THE ABILITY TO GIVE SOMETHING OF VALUE WITHOUT RECEIVING ANYTHING IN EXCHANGE.  Could we use this idea as the basis for a revised economic system?  That is hard to know in advance, however, in an optimistic manner, I propose a new kind of currency for testing the idea: The Noble.  This currency incorporates two ideas: doing favors and paying a benefit forward.  If conventional monetary currency compels a value system that promotes taking, then a new currency could compel an opposite value system, one based on giving.  I propose that, from such a currency, a revolution of human nature might emerge.  This revolution would result in individual self-worth as well as responsible stewardship of the earth.

CLICK HERE to go to Part Seven.

Reciprocity – Like Water to Fish, Part Four

Bob Fiske

Reciprocity – Like Water to Fish, Part Four

CLICK HERE to go to Part Three

An Experiment.  The value of reciprocity is very hard to shake off.  To make the point, we can try a little experiment.  Suppose you find a penny on the sidewalk.  Then you pick up the penny and put a nickel in its place.  Then you tell all your family members what you did and suggest that they do the same.  I predict that the large majority of them will look at you like you are crazy. Even if you are able to explain to them why you did it (see below), they will not get it.

If you do this experiment, be prepared for responses like this: “You idiot, you just lost four cents.”  “Are you nuts?  You picked up a penny!”  “No wonder you can’t pay your bills, look how you handle money!”  “What?  Where’s your payoff for that?”

By the way, there are other ways you can act “crazy”.  Got a little spare change?  Put it in a vending machine when nobody is looking.  Or walk down a street that has parking meters.  See a meter set to expire, and add a quarter to it.  These senseless acts can do you no good and earn you no profit.  (Unless you count the possibility of making someone a little bit happy as profit.)

The world is imbalanced because the human system of exchanges is imbalanced.  We have been taught that nothing that people do happens without a payoff.  We are conditioned to judge the payoff before we choose.  Why does that make for a broken system?  Because while we are busy with our value exchanges, which we regard as fair, we are ignoring the debts we owe to the earth, to its people and to all other forms of life. That is not fair.  Our economic system, that we designed to keep exchanges fair has no room in it to account for “invisible” debts.  We mortgage the welfare of poor countries, the earth, the biosphere, and the future condition of the world that our descendants will inherit every time we make value exchanges that ignore the true costs of production and disposal.

The Other Side of the Coin.  If reciprocity is the underlying deep value that guides our value exchanges, and if it is not a trustworthy guide, then what might we establish in its place?  In a word, “non-reciprocity”.  Allow me to explain.  I am not talking about selfishness.  Nor do I mean a breakdown in a lawful society such that “might makes right”, and the strongest take from the weakest.  In fact, I would suggest that our reciprocity-based system has already moved us in these directions.

As members of one of the world’s “Major Economies”, we have bought the rights to natural resources buried in the ground of “Minor Economies”.  We have exploited impoverished workers by paying factories to hire them at non-living wages.  Who is going to stand in our way?

As big-brained humans, the smartest species on the planet, we have over-exercised our might and our right to take from the earth.  In the name of inexpensive meat, we burn forests.  In the name of our personal health, we plunder the fish stocks of the oceans.  In the name of housing tracts and business development, we crowd out endangered species.  Who is going to stand in our way?

As a perpetually fertile animal, we have a natural ability to procreate.  We do this in the name of giving our children a better life than our forebears had.  We do it in the name of immortality.  Unlike other species, we have no predators to keep us in check.  And the earth itself cannot stop us from despoiling it except by damaging living conditions in general, both for us and countless other species.  Who is going to stand in our way?  (Perhaps the physical limits of spaceship earth will, if you choose to adopt such a belief.  Even then, it is not a pretty picture.)

Non-reciprocity.  Here is what I mean by non-reciprocity.  A non-reciprocal act is giving without receiving.  To many people, this idea is such a great departure from the norm that it would be rejected outright without being given any further consideration.  How can you give without receiving?  Why if we did that all the time, we would have nothing left and would end up as paupers!  And that is nonsense!

So who said anything about doing it all the time?  Let’s try to embed this idea in a larger framework in which it makes more sense.  In spite of the principle of reciprocity—which many equate with fairness—we already live in a society that has forfeited generosity for selfish gain.  How can I support such an assertion?  Perhaps through some examples.

How many people wait until driving a large automobile is economically unfeasible to switch to a small automobile?  How many people take the time to find out who they are really voting for instead of letting political advertisements decide for them?  How many well-to-do taxpayers use a tax-write-off as their excuse for making charitable donations?  How many of us get impatient, or even angry, when a cashier has a long line of patrons, and we have to wait a little while to reach the front of the line?

Far too few live by the true equation of life: if you take, you must put back, otherwise you doom your own existence.  It is a strange irony that indigenous cultures, such as the Maasai nomads in northeast Africa, know this better than we do.  In a land where water is precious, they guard this resource.  They manage vast herds of livestock, but they are careful to keep regional collectives of families from growing beyond resource limits.  Even their children learn that each water source must not be dirtied, and must be preserved.  (Source: Masood E., Schaffer D. (eds.), 2006. Dry: Life Without Water.)

Observing them you would describe their economic system as, “Put something back so that there will be something to take in the future.”  That is what non-reciprocity buys you.

The Unbalanced Economy.  In short, we have become so accustomed to reciprocal trade-offs that this has become the unspoken, unquestioned assumption in all of our dealings.  Unfortunately, this approach to dealing with life uses only one-half of our humanity, the taking half.  Meanwhile, our giving half atrophies.  Our consuming society has conditioned us to ignore this half.

This is like exercising part of our body while allowing the rest of it to wither.  Imagine the human species as a weight-lifter who has built up his left arm’s musculature and strength while ignoring completely his right arm.  The picture that comes to mind reminds me more of some aquatic crab with its asymmetrically enlarged claw than it does of a normal, well-balance person.

In fact, this is exactly like the philosophy that underpins most economic models and government policies.  According to these models the only rational and desirable outcome is to raise the general welfare of the citizenry and to promote growth of the economy.  These models have an unchallenged assumption that “good” equates to raising the bar, in general.

There is no room in that discussion for lowering the bar.  Yet, the time to lower the bar is upon us, and our definition of economic welfare is seriously in need of reformation.

Summary of Part Four.  We have become conditioned to give only for the sake of payoff.  Yet our system of exchanges mortgages the welfare of exploited countries, the existence of other species and the future that humanity will inherit.  Our system of exchanges is based upon the strong drawing upon the weak and the power to ignore invisible debts.  These are uneven exchanges, yet they are deemed “fair”.  If this is what we mean by reciprocity, then the proper thing would be to call for “non-reciprocity”.  This is defined as a giving act that does not expect a payoff to balance the loss.  This is defined as taking from the present world only enough, and putting back what you have taken to preserve the opportunity to take in the future.  Economic models in modern societies do not grasp this concept.  They are couched in terms of raising the bar.  In these models no credence is given to lowering the bar.

CLICK HERE to go to Part Five.

Are Biosolids Safe?

At a recent industry-sponsored biosolids conference Deborah Koons Garcia castigated the EPA-approved practice of turning sewage sludge into fertilizer.

·         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef3PaeLnZuE

The waste-treatment community would like us to accept this practice.  Critics charge that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has turned a blind eye to the industry’s desire to pass off toxic material as a safe fertilizer.  Could this be?  Let’s find out.

According to an EPA web page

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/wastewater/treatment/biosolids/index.cfm

• ·         The risk assessment for the Federal Part 503 rule that governs the land application of biosolids took nearly ten years to complete and had extensive rigorous review and comment.

• ·         Only biosolids that meet the most stringent standards spelled out in the Federal and state rules can be approved for use as a fertilizer. Now, through a Voluntary Environmental Management System, being developed for biosolids (EMS) by the National Biosolids Partnership (NBP), community-friendly practices will also be followed.

• ·         Although cities decide how best to manage their biosolids, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is obligated and continues to provide the public with educational information, based on the best science, about the safe recycling and disposal of biosolids.

In other words, the EPA has chosen not to regulate the production of biosolids from sewage waste.  Rather, this agency has positioned itself only to provide information to the public.

But does this really confirm critics’ charges that the EPA is capitulating to businesses that might be more concerned with profit than with human health?  Why don’t we compare the science behind the policy to make up our minds.

In a 2003 press release

·         http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/209dab87e1b0a8b785256dc20050c977?OpenDocument

the EPA announced its decision not to regulate the dioxin content of land-applied sewage sludge.  In other words, the EPA claims that its analysis of the data on sewage-born dioxins allows it to conclude that the dioxins in the sludge pose a negligible risk of increasing human cancer rates.

This, however, is not the last word on the toxicity of sewage sludge.  A Wikipedia article on sludge

·         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sludge

contains references to studies that suggest that at least some sludge is anything but benign.  According to the article, one study published in 2002

·         http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/2/11

documents numerous instances of pathology among 48 people living near a site where sludge residues were applied.  For instance, about one quarter of this population suffered from Staphylococcus aureus infections, with two deaths noted.  (Curiously, the lead author of this published study was an employee of the EPA.  Did anyone say, “Suppressed results?)

Another study cited in the Wikipedia article

·         http://www.sludgefacts.org/Ref98.pdf

presents evidence for concern.  According to the authors of this study residents near another site where sewage biosolids were applied reported a variety symptoms or maladies at statistically significant levels.  These included abdominal bloating, jaundice, skins ulcers, bronchitis and giardiasis.

This is not to say that human excrement should not be converted into fertilizer.  A number of sources suggest that human wastes can successfully boost agricultural productivity.  For example, one article summarizes a grass roots pilot project for bacterial decomposition of human waste.

·         http://www.alternet.org/environment/141718/your_crap,_our_compost:_turning_human_feces_into_fertile_soil/

According to Nancy Klehm, the brainchild behind the project, feces can be converted into high quality fertilizer—if it is collected directly from the human beings producing it.  On the other hand, trying to convert sewage sludge into something safe has the inherent disadvantage that sewage collects and concentrates many additional toxic by-products.  These include toxic metals, pharmaceutical compounds, insecticides, industrial wastes and pollution runoff from urban roads.

Finally, I’d like to ponder this question.  You mean the EPA is not the impartial entity I believed it to be?  If I can’t trust the EPA, who can I trust?  WHO, indeed!

The World Health Organization recognized that human wasted could be an essential component of agricultural nutrients in many areas of the planet.  Therefore, this organization published the results of its studies as a guideline document for people to practice safe production of “humanure”.  Here is that document:

• ·         http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/wwuvol4_intro.pdf

By the way, that is only the Executive Summary.  If you want the full document, use this link:

• ·         http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/gsuww/en/index.html

So there it is.  From bio-mess to biomass.

environMENTAL 1

This morning, because the rain clouds seemed to be clearing, Nils took a squeegee to his car’s windows, carefully scraping away the drops of water.  He felt self-conscious as he did this, and he wondered if others would think him silly.  If someone were to remark that his behavior was pointless, that more rain was in the forecast, he decided that he would say proudly, “This is an optimistic act!”

Truth be told, Nils doesn’t feel much optimism these days.  He looks around and notices how woefully unaware most people are of the human impact on the earth.  There appears to be tremendous impetus to keep the current unsustainable lifestyle going.  Indeed, judging from our purchasing and transportation choices, the vast majority of people are voting for more, not less, of the rich lifestyle.

How can we do this?  Nils thinks it’s because of an unhealthy optimism that pervades our psyches.  We tell ourselves that everything will work out fine.  Everything will be OK.  We do the wrong thing and hold onto an irrational hope that nothing bad will happen.  And, when we look around and see everybody behaving the same way, that becomes—reasonable behavior.

Nils sees this as a form of storytelling.  Stories are a vital part of our mental landscape.  We consume them voraciously, in books, television, cinema, newspapers, blogs and magazines.  We have a need for stories that is so powerful that great industries have grown up that provide them for us, around the clock and at a moment’s notice.  People like stories for their drama, for the emotional rush, and especially for their happy endings.

There’s nothing really bad about picturing your life as a story.  Nils realizes that it’s more than a useful metaphor.  It’s an organizing scheme the brain uses to make sense of events and attach meaning to them.  It’s a built-in human need, and pursuing that need creates within us a sense of satisfaction.

If we use that need inappropriately, then our stories become fairy tales: sweet imaginings that charm and reassure children.  An addiction to stories that portray a false picture of the world is an expression of denial, a refusal to grow up, and a failure to take responsibility for our collective behavior.

If we continue to believe in the happy ending, then we will not avert the consequences of our actions.