Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Amicus Filed in USA v Bradley Manning

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Amicus Filed in USA v Bradley Manning

CommonSism Aequilibriaex Jurisprudence: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons. Guerrylla Laws simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent).

Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 02 April 2013

[2.1] Amici’s Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Arguments to this AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Dispute.

A. Credibility Failure/Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: An analysis of the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence, in terms of its preference to regulate (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts; on behalf of the exclusive benefits of Anthropocentric males and corporations.

B. Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence argues that a ‘credible’ Æquilibriæx judicial system – like the gender balanced Mosuo in South West China who have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; – is one which accurately and honestly applies the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related preferred result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance

C. Equilibriæx: Ecocentric analysis of alleged crime with regard to the laws of nature / ecology. Did criminal act contribute to greater inter-species carrying capacity harmony, or dischord, between between humans, nature and other animals species?

D. Aquilibriæx: Anthropocentric analysis of alleged ‘crime’ with regard to the laws of human nature. Did criminal act contribute to greater intra-species equity harmony, or dischord, between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts?

[Excerpts] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Amicus Filed in USA v Bradley Manning

CommonSism Aequilibriaex Jurisprudence: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons. Guerrylla Laws simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent).

[3.3] Amici’s Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Principles Perspective to this AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Dispute.

[3.4] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence:

A. Æquilibriæx is derived from æquus (equal), libra/æ (balance), libri (books), lex (law). Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence, i.e. Equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law; occurs as Equilibriæx Jurisprudence which adheres to the laws of nature / ecology, which manifests as all species living in carry capacity harmony with another; and Aquilibriæx Jurisprudence adheres to laws of human nature, which manifests as fully informed consent harmony between all human members of society.

B. Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence recognizes all Leaver beings, animal and plant species, individuals, corporations, families, tribes, etc., rights to legal personhood; where Leavers are recognized and legally rewarded for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and intra-species harmony, and Takers are recognized and legally penalized for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and/or intra-species disharmony and dischord.

[3.5] Sustainable Security:

A. Sustainability is Security: “There is no security without sustainability”: In the absence of an international new moral order where Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence confront the Military Doctrine reality of Environmental Resource Scarcity induced conflict and resource wars, and implements Guerrylla laws to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour; towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation” and resource scarcity will result in conflict and war (perhaps nuclear ) confronting regions at an accelerated pace, and “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy” by 2050.

B. Sustainable Security acknowledges that the major socio-political driver on planet earth during the 21st century will be the Post-Peak Oil/NNR collapse of Industrial Civilization and all industrialized nation states, in a self-inflicted – economic and population growth addiction illusion – global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.

C. All AnthroCorpocentric exponential growth addicted industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their left or right wing economic and political orientations, will collapse as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce Non Renewable Natural Resources (NNR’s).

D. The AnthroCorpoCentric elites who have the greatest vested interest in preserving their AnthroCorpocentric parasitic status quo shall continue to preach their flat earth dogma of ‘economic growth’; and their submissive believer citizens will not accept gracefully the new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with the inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial Primitivist lifestyle paradigm.

E. Overpopulation and consumption Scarcity induced resource war social unrest and resource wars will degenerate—seemingly instantaneously—into full fledged conflicts among nations, classes, and ultimately individuals for remaining natural resources. It will become universally understood that the only way to “stay even”, is to take from somebody else, preferably someone from a different race, culture or class. Life will become a “negative sum game” within the “shrinking pie” of “continuously less and less”. Social institutions will dissolve; law and order will cease to exist; and chaos will fill the void— nations will violently collapse.

F. Sustainable Security advocates on behalf of CommonSism reduction of population and consumption, and ethnic and cultural secession and economic relocalisation into low/no tech localized self-sustaining cultural or ethnic homogenous relocalized and decentralized Agrarian or Primitivist confederate tribal society; or alternatively NNR scarcity depletion will exterminate us, and force it upon the remaining survivors, if any; in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm.

[..]

ARGUMENT

What is a Credible - Æquilibriæx - Legal System?

[14] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence argues that a ‘credible’ Æquilibriæx judicial system – like the gender balanced Mosuo in South West China who have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment ; – is one which accurately and honestly applies the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related preferred result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance; i.e.

[14.1] the laws of nature/ecology, recognizing that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating human procreation and resource utilization behaviour in accordance with the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights ; and

[14.2] the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural, religious, and ideological laws of human nature , are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.

[15] The socio-political problem solving system of the Gender Balanced agrarian Mosuo culture in South West China is plausibly the most credible system of jurisprudence on planet earth. The people of Mosuo have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide, no prisons, no mental illness, no mental institutions, no unemployment and no homelessness; as a result of abiding by (a) the laws of nature and tribal control of population and consumption, and (b) the laws of human nature, in terms of public problem solving, and a socio-political focus on root cause problem solving.

[16] In Mosuo culture, women are the head of the house, property is passed through the female line, and women tend to make the business decisions. Mosuo women carry on the family name and run the households, which are usually made up of several families, with one woman elected as the head. The head matriarchs of each village govern the region by committee. Political power, however, remains in the hands of males, creating a gender-balanced society. The traditional Mosuo religion worships nature, is called Daba, with Lugu Lake regarded as the Mother Goddess and the mountain overlooking it venerated as the Goddess of Love. Their focus is their close relationship to the land that supports them and with their neighbours, who also support them.

What is an AnthroCorpocentric Legal System?:

[17] An AnthroCorpocentric judicial system is one which regulates inter and intra-species relational conflicts – (the relations and conflicts between (a) humans, nature and other animals species, and (b) humans amongst themselves, in terms of gender, culture, religion and ideological differences) – almost exclusively for the benefit of Anthropocentric males and corporations; such as: Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) ; Munn v. State of Illinois (1876) ; Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) ; Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (1893) ; Lochner v. New York (1905) ; Liggett v. Lee (1933) ; Ross v. Bernhard (1970) ; U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply (1976) ; Marshall v. Barlow (1978) ; First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) ; Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Comm. of NY (1980) ; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) ; Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002); Nike v Kasky (2002) ; Randall v Sorrell (2006) . Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) ; Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana.

[18] In The Ballooning Number of Corporate Kangaroo Courts Is Destroying Our Seventh Amendment Rights, Jim Hightower writes that “If you've been gouged by your bank, discriminated against, sexually harassed, unfairly fired, you'll most likely find that you're barred from the courthouse door.”

Since binding mandatory arbitration "agreements" are written by corporate lawyers, it's no surprise that they stack the deck in favor of corporations. But — wow! — the percentage of rigged wins is disgusting.

For example, Public Citizen found that one giant firm, the National Arbitration Forum, heard over 34,000 consumer-versus-bank cases in California. It sided with financial giants 95 percent of the time. Even more astonishing, the city of San Francisco found that of the 18,045 cases brought by banks and other powers against overmatched California consumers, NAF's private judges sided with the corporations 100 percent of the time.

[19] Since AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence does not even grant nature, animals, plants automatic legal personhood, it is fair to say that they have, and continue to effectively be barred from the courthouse door, to protest the extermination of their habitats and total extinction of their species , and that AnthroCorpocentric Despotic Jurists and Legislators have sided with Corporations and Anthropocentric males, 99.999% percent of the time.

[..]

FAILURES/FRAUD OF ANTHROCORPOCENTRIC JURISPRUDENCE

[20] Credibility Failure of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence:

[21] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence asserts that AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence lacks credibility as a system of Jurisprudence, in terms of its (a) failure to provide legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology, and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature, when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.

[22] AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s Social Contract: Despotism:

“When it comes to grazing at the federal trough, no one sits taller in the saddle than corporate cowboys.” - Paul Rogers and Jennifer LaFleur, "Damage Goes on at Taxpayer Expense," San Jose Mercury News, November 7, 1999.

“Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife reserve, wilderness, or indigenous culture will survive the global market economy. We know that every natural system on the planet is disintegrating... There is no polite way to say that business is destroying the world.” - Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability, 1993, 3.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini

[23] Social Contract n: an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; where the individual surrenders liberty in return for protection.

[24] The English philosopher John Locke, whose thinking helped inspire the American Revolution, said that society should be governed by an understood set of values he termed the social contract. Individuals form states in order to maintain social order, where ‘law and order’ are considered to be a state of community relations that contribute to social conditions which reduce conflict. By giving up their warlike “state of nature” posited to exist before such a hypothetical social contract is agreed upon, they agree to uphold their citizen responsibilities in order to benefit from the social order provided by the State, whose social contract responsibility is to guarantee them with a reasonable guarantee of peace and security. Social contract theory has consequently formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that for any state to be considered legitimate, their authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.

[25] According to the US Supreme Court in Roberts v. Louisiana, the core of the Lockean “social contract” idea is that a “society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few.”

[26] Consequently in a credible Lockean “social contract’, man must recognize limitations to his freedoms, limitations to his ‘unbridled will to do as he likes’; to benefit from the maintenance of law and order and the ensured sustainability of the social contract. In a non-credible social contract, certain men do not recognize limitations on their freedoms, limitations to their ‘unbridled will to do as they like’; choosing instead to become a society where freedom to do as one likes, is “the possession of only a savage few.”

[27] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence asserts that a credible sustainable social contract requires Legislators and Jurists to recognize that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by the laws of nature/ecology, which dictate that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating procreation and consumption in accordance to the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and (B) the laws of human nature; which generally have proven that a culture’s sustainable organic internal harmony is directly proportional to the quality of its members honesty, transparency, accountability and fully informed consenting agreements.

[28] Conversely when Legislators and Jurists enact legislation/jurisprudence while which ignores the limits imposed by the laws of nature/ecology and/or the laws of human nature; they are consciously choosing to become a society where freedom to do as one likes, is “the possession of only a savage few.” Such legislators/jurists can well be described as a form of government which has become destructive, whose long train of abuses and usurpations, evinces a design towards AnthroCorpocentric Juristic Despotism. If so, it is the right and duty of all citizens, particularly those who swore an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic; to overthrow such AnthroCorpocentric Juristic Despotism.

[29] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence asserts that the political, academic and legal captains of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic, refusal to recognize that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by the laws of nature/ecology and human nature; are driving SV AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Titanic full speed to their ‘suicide pact’ collision with the Laws of Ecology and Human Nature, their scarcity induced crisis of conflict Iceberg.

AQUILIBRIÆX (ANTHROPOCENTRIC) PRINCIPLES

[..]

[32] Æquilibriæx is derived from æquus (equal), libra/æ (balance), libri (books), lex (law). Æquilibriæx – i.e. Equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law/jurisprudence occurs as Equilibriæx Jurisprudence which adheres to the laws of nature / ecology, and Aquilibriæx Jurisprudence adheres to laws of human nature.

[33] Æquilibriæx jurisprudence occurs when Legislators and Jurists recognize that their -- Roberts v. Louisiana Lockean “social contract” duties - that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by (a) the laws of nature/ecology, which dictate that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating procreation and consumption in accordance to the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and (B) the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural, religious, and ideological laws of human nature , are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.

[34] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence recognizes all Leaver beings, species, individuals, corporations, families, tribes, etc., rights to legal personhood; but based upon the principles of CommonSism, distinguishes between Sustainable Leavers who are recognized and legally rewarded for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and intra-species harmony, and Unsustainable Takers who are recognized and legally penalized for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and/or intra-species disharmony and discord.

[35] CommonSism, or Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons, is inspired by -- among others -- the Taker vs. Leaver and Leaver Law of Limited Competition ideas of the gorilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as expressed by Garrett Hardin, and the Order of Melchizedek ideas of Yakov Rabinovich, as expressed in Stairway to Nowhere: Chapter 8: Melchizedek — Ecological War.

[36] CommonSism asserts that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological Overshoot, resulting from the AnthroCorpoCentric Consumptionist Left and Right Wing's war against nature, and the absence of Ecocentric Jurisprudence combined with the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence.

[37] Ecological Overshoot is a consequence of all other ideologies and their AnthroCorpocentric adherents failure to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal, including voting rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties, including denial of rights, including voting rights, to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.

[38] Guerrylla Laws (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent); and are (B) used in courts to (a) provide legal rights and socio-political rewards of recognition to Sustainable Leaver's for their Heroic lifestyle choices and practices; (b) confront Taker Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity induced socio-economic problems, by means of aggravated legal penalties, in accordance to their 'Taker Scarcity Combatant' status. An organisation or corporation who only employs Leavers is a Leaver organisation, and one which has one or more Takers, is considered a Taker organisation.

[39] The Tragedy of the Commons is an ecological concept that refers to the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to their long-term best interests. Ecologist Garrett Hardin famously explored this social dilemma in “The Tragedy of the Commons”.

[40] Social Trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole; such as for example overfishing, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, overgrazing on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture. Social fence refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group.

[41] Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) Principles:

[42] Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, 1968 essay focussed on clarifying how the population problem was a moral problem, and required a moral solution. Hardin showed why Adam Smith's laissez-faire doctrine and belief that the invisible hand enables a system of individuals to pursue their private interests which will automatically serve the collective interest; is flawed.

[43] Hardin’s key metaphor, the Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) showed why Smith was wrong. Hardin argued that when a resource is held "in common," with many people having "ownership" and access to it, a self-interested "rational" actor will decide to increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit of the increase, but the costs are spread among all users. When many people think this way, the tragic result is the overexploitation and ruin of the commons. Similar to the herdsman, couples expect to experience a large benefit from having a second child, or consuming above carrying capacity, without having to bear the full social and ecological cost of their choices.

[44] Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons Assumptions & Solutions:

[44.1] The world is biophysically finite.

A. The more people there are, and the more they consume, the less each person's share must be.

B. Technology (ie, agricultural) cannot fundamentally alter this.

C. We can't both maximize the number of people and satisfy every desire or "good" of everyone.

D. Practically, biophysical limits dictate we must both stabilize population, and consumption.

E. Both steps will generate opposition, since many people will have to relinquish their procreation and/or consumption behaviour.

[44.2] Over-population and overconsumption are example’s of the tragedy of the commons (ToC).

A. Commons are un-owned or commonly-held "pool" resources that are "free," or not allocated by markets.

B. Hardin's ToC model assumes that individuals are short-term, self-interested "rational" actors, seeking to maximize their own gains.

C. Such actors will exploit commons (have more babies, add more cattle to pastures, pollute the air, overconsume) as long as they believe the costs to them individually are less than the benefits.

D. The system of individual welfare insulates individuals from bearing the full costs of over-reproducing, and corporate welfare insulates corporations from bearing the costs of overproduction.

E. When every individual believes and behaves in this manner, commons are quickly filled, degraded, and ruined along with their erst-while exploiters.

F. A laissez-faire system (letting individuals choose as they like) will not "as if by an invisible hand" solve over-population and/or overconsumption.

[44.3] The "commons" system for breeding and consuming must be abandoned (as it has been for other resources).

A. In other words, something must restrain individual reproduction and consumption.

B. but it must not be individual conscience; appealing to conscience will only result in fewer people with conscience in the population (assuming here that it is genetic, or perfectly transmitted by learning).

C. It should be accomplished by "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon."

D. Sacrificing freedom to breed and consume will obtain for us other more important freedoms which will otherwise be lost.

E. "Coercive" restrictions on breeding and consuming could take a number of forms.

F. The "right" to determine the size of one's family and socio-economic consumption status, must be rescinded.

G. This will protect the conscientious traits in the population.

[44.4] The problem is then to gain peoples' consent to a system of coercion.

A. People will consent if they understand the dire consequences of letting the population growth rate and consumption growth rate, be set only by individuals' choices.

B. Educating all people about the ToC, its consequences, and the alternatives to it, is necessary.

C. Then various restraints and incentives for low reproduction and consumption, below the commons carrying capacity limits, can and must be instituted.

[45] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Tragedy of the Commons Rights and Penalties:

[46] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Taker and Leaver Rights and Penalties are designed to remove the AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence breeding and consumption war incentives to violate the Commons carrying capacity. If or when an individual chooses to procreate or consume above the Commons carrying capacity (be a Taker), they thereby make their own voluntary decision to deny themselves access to the Commons social contract’s protection of rights to liberty, life and property, etc. They choose – by their decision to overbreed and overconsume -- to no longer be entitled to the social contract protections to life, liberty and property, etc.

[47] Right to Life: Leavers are entitled to state social contract protection of their right to life, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract right to life (within the law of limited competition). Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‘right’ to life, since their procreation and/or consumption lifestyle deliberately violates the ‘right to life’ of nature and animals and plant species. For example: If or where a Taker is murdered, either by another Taker or a leaver, it is for the Takers’ family to prosecute the matter as a civil matter, and attempt to convince the Jury how or why the Taker should be given an exemption access to the Leaver’s right to life. If the accused (Taker or Leaver) can prove to the court, that the person who was murdered, was – in terms of their Taker procreation and consumption behaviours – committing murder of Leavers, and nature, by denying and stealing their land and access to their habitats, then the murder of such a Taker, would have been beneficial to Æquilibriæx harmony, since the murdered Taker was creating disharmony by his procreation and/or consumption greedy practices.

[48] Property Ownership: Leavers are entitled to social contract protection of their property rights, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract property rights. Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‘right’ to protection of their property, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the property rights of nature and animals and plant species. If Takers allege their property has been damaged or stolen, they can prosecute the matter as a civil matter. For example: If a robber robs a bank, and is again robbed by another robber outside the bank, who steals his ‘stolen property’, he has no ‘right’ to claim that it was his ‘lawful property’. Similarly any individual who is living above Commons carrying capacity, cannot claim that his ‘property’ is his own ‘lawful property’, because in violating the Commons Carrying capacity, he is stealing property, liberty, and life from other species and nature; hence his property is ‘stolen property’.

[49] Right to Vote & be Employed as Civil Servant: Leavers are entitled to social contract right to vote, and to be employed as a civil servant, including the right to legislate social contract laws, since they are living a lifestyle which demonstrates their competency to respect all other species life, voting and property rights, in accordance to carrying capacity principles. Takers are not entitled to the ‘right’ to vote, or to be employed as a civil servant, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the life, property and voting rights of nature and animals and plant species, demonstrating either their incompetence or moral delinquency.

[50] Right to Freedom of Speech, Liberty etc: Similarly, leavers are entitled to these social contract rights; whereas Takers are not entitled to these rights. If or where a Taker considers any such ‘right’ to have been violated, they are however entitled to prosecute the matter as a civil matter.

[51] Penalties for Civil Prosecutors acting for Takers: If or where an Attorney chooses to proceed to prosecute a civil matter on behalf of a Taker’s grievances, and fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client’s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‘Tragedy of the Courts Commons’ death penalty.

[..]

[71] Two Agri-Cultures: Sustainable Leavers and Unsustainable Takers:

[72] World Food and Human Population Growth, describes how food supply drives human population growth, and how human population growth adversely affects our environment and our ability to sustain our culture. This began with the agricultural revolution, a cultural change which advocates continually increasing food production. The consequences of Agricultural expansion are: * decreased carbon sequestration (80%), decreased soil nutrients (20%), decreased base stream flow (30%), and decreased species biodiversity (80%).

[73] In Genetic feedback and human population regulation , Russell Hopfenberg clarifies the different consequences between the practices of these two Agri-Cultures:

“Lack of cultural variability is precisely the situation in which the human species finds itself. Except for a tiny minority of tribal peoples on the planet, the human species can be seen as participating in a monoculture. This monoculture, called civilization (Quinn 1992; Cohen 1995), has as its foundation, the basic feature of continually increasing food production. As Cohen (1995) stated, “The ability to produce food allowed human numbers to increase greatly and made it possible, eventually, for civilizations to arise.” Farb (1978) pointed out that “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population.” He also asserted “the population explosion, the shortage of resources, the pollution of the environment, exploitation of one human group by another, famine and war—all have their roots in that great adaptive change from foraging to production.” Farb’s statement makes clear that the “adaptive change from foraging to production” is coming into focus as one that has provided some relatively short-term benefits and many long-term difficulties. These difficulties may ultimately lead to an environment that is no longer capable of sustaining human life (Pimm et al. 1995).”

[74] Current Arable land is a category of agricultural land, which, according to Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) definition, additionally includes land under permanent or perennial crops, such as fruit plantations, as well as permanent pastures, for grazing of livestock. In 2008, the world's total arable land amounted to 13,805,153 km², and 48,836,976 km² was classified as "agricultural land."

[75] Reducing Human Impact on the Environment, requires population and consumption reduction.

[76] The impact of humans on the environment and the demands that people place on the resources available on the planet can be summarised by what is known as the Ehrlich or IPAT equation, I=PAT. I = impact on the environment or demand for resources, P = population size, A = affluence and T = technology.

[77] The two most important conclusions deriving from this relationship are that:

[77.1] the Earth can support only a limited number of people, at a certain level of affluence, in a sustainable manner; and

[77.2] Population and Consumption must be reduced to below carrying capacity.

[78] Ecological Footprint: Consumption x Procreation Factor:

[79] Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as a Sustainable Leaver (aka Eco-Innocent) or Unsustainable Taker (aka Scarcity-Combatant), based upon a sustainable consumption bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha) (60 % of 1.8 gha) in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan ; multiplied by an individuals Breeding footprint factor of 20 per child. [(Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20 )]

[80] Sustainable Leaver / Eco-Innocent: 0 children, consumption < 20 gha (Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20); or 1 child, consumption < 1 gha. [81] Unsustainable Taker / Scarcity-Combatant: 0 children, consumption > 20 gha; or 1 child, consumption > 1 gha.

[82] For example: Amici’s Consumption Footprint using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). South Africa's average consumption footprint is 38.59 gha. Amici has no children, consequently her procreation factor is 0 x 20* = 0. Her Consumption (12.75) x Procreation (0) = Eco Footprint of 12.75/0 gha. If accurate, if everyone consumed like her, we would need 0.81 earths. Conversely, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths .

[..]

AQUILIBRIÆX (ANTHROPOCENTRIC) PRINCIPLES

[..]

[90] Cultural Variances in ‘Human Nature’:

[91] Aquilibriæx jurisprudence believes that there are great cultural variances in the ‘laws of human nature’. Such cultural diversity should be recognized and honestly confronted and honest transparent solutions found to resolve disputes between diverse culture’s with totally different ‘laws of human nature’. People from different cultures, see the world in the socially and cultural constructed ways of their particular culture. Under our skins and particularly in our minds, in terms of how we view the world, and subsequently how we act in terms of our worldview, we are culturally very different.

[92] Aquilibriæx jurisprudence recognizes that culture shapes human cognition, including but not limited to “visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ”.

[93] Our culture’s socially constructed worldview and practices shape our minds, actions, beliefs and ideas. Our minds mould themselves to our cultural and environmental practices. Our culture’s mould our most fundamental conscious and unconscious thinking and perception. We see and relate to the world, through the prism of our cultural values and social and environmental practices.

[94] As argued in The Weirdest People in the World (PDF):

Behavioural scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology, cognition, and behaviour in the world’s top journals based on samples drawn entirely from highly educated segments of Western societies. Researchers—often implicitly—assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these “standard subjects” are as representative of the species as any other. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioural sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that standard subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species—frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The comparative findings suggest that members of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, or behaviour — hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioural phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioural sciences to best tackle these challenges.

Resolving Conflict between Cultural Variances in ‘Human Nature’:

[95] Aquilibriæx jurisprudence argues that the most effective ways to resolve inter-cultural conflict, is:

[96] Transparent Simple Clarity: A cultures honesty and transparency is considered directly proportional to how explicitly clear and succinct they define their values in simple language, and how consistently they live in accordance to such cultural values.

[97] Reconcilable Cultural Differences: Cultures with differences which are reconcilable, i.e. the differences are not mutually exclusive, but capable of culturally intimate coexistence.

[98] Irreconcilable Cultural Differences: Cultures with differences which are irreconcilable, i.e. the differences are mutually exclusive, a cause of friction when members of the culture’s interact, and hence incapable of intimate cultural coexistence.

[99] Melting Pot Multiculturalism: Culture’s with reconcilable cultural differences are capable of resolving their disputes and finding a harmonious balance between their various reconcilable cultural differences.

[100] Melting Pot Multiculturalism only works when both cultures voluntarily coexist with their mutually reconcilable differences. When Melting Pot multiculturalists force or coerce one or more cultures who have irreconcilable differences, to coexist in a Melting Pot, then the culture which is coerced into suppressing and denying the practice of their cultural values, shall build up anger and resentment towards both their perceived ‘enemy’ culture, and the coercing authority; which shall eventually – like a pressure cooker build up and finally explode into extremely violent conflict (For example: Anders Breivik).

[101] Separatist Multiculturalism: Cultures with irreconcilable cultural differences are incapable of resolving their disputes and finding a harmonious balance between their cultural values. Such cultures can only coexist by implementing separatist multiculturalism between their cultures, thereby respecting and honouring both cultures rights to exist separately with the least amount of contact between the cultures possible, thereby also denying both cultures the opportunity to resolve their irreconcilable differences by means of physical, economic or other forms of cultural colonization.

» » » » [SQSwans]