The Isocracy Network

In part one I gave a broad overview of Germany, how its unique history (with Russia in particular) led to Berlin becoming a semi-witting enabler of Vladimir Putin's imperialist ambitions. “Semi-witting” as this enabling did not come about due to malign intent, but rather through a combination of historical guilt for World War Two in general and the death and suffering inflicted on the people of the Soviet Union especially, and Germany's constructed post-Cold War identity of a nation of hard workers who desire only trade and peace. Prussia, as Napoleon famously put it, was a state hatched from a cannon ball, however its modern descendent, the Federal Republic of Germany, has become soft and accomodating by design, both from within and without. Putin smelled this weakness and capitalised. Even as Ukraine mounts its 2023 counter-offensive, with German Leopard tanks now a key part of Kyiv's newly acquired heavy armour, Berlin continues to avoid taking on a true leadership position in the defence of Europe. And the roots of this hesitation are old and deep.

An issue of ongoing academic debate is how pacifist Germany has been since 1945. (For the purposes of this argument the focus will be on West Germany, the defence and foreign policy of communist East Germany was really dictated by the Soviet Union, and while the official term describing what happened in 1990 is “reunification”, it would be more accurate to describe the former GDR being absorbed into the political and legal structure of the FRG.) This “pacifism” needs to be understood more as a sort of a national mood, not like the (in)famous Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan that forbids that country from ever declaring war. As covered in part one, West Germany's position as a NATO member on the front line of the Cold War meant that it had to be something of a military power in addition to hosting foreign troops. But as Japan has a “Self-Defence Force” that isn't technically a military, so too did Germany have an army, but for most citizens the idea of these soldiers deploying overseas was considered unlikely to deeply undesirable.

Certainly one could, and must, be sympathetic and in solidarity to those who are doing the absolute best they can with the power, knowledge, and community they at hand have to engage in valiant conservation efforts, especially given the effectiveness of such local efforts. All of this does not take away from grim facts that many conservation scientists are alerting us to the possibility that the planet is facing an atrocity exhibition that is becoming known as the Anthropocene extinction, which affects so many numerous species across all biological domains is being called a mass extinction event. To fend off accusations of histrionic alarmism is is necessary to begin with established definitions and apply the facts available. Recognising there is significant debate over matters of quantity and time, a mass extinction event is defined as a sudden loss of quantity and diversity of life where the rate of extinction far exceeds the background extinction rate (Sudakow et al, 2022).

With this definition in mind, this inquiry first seeks to quantify the extent of the extinction to see if there is similarity with other events that are considered mass extinctions, and reviewing the debate within conversation and ecological research communities exists on whether we are at the verge of this extinction event or in the midst of it. Following this there is a review of the degree that human or natural causes have contributed to biodiversity loss, and finally a discussion of proposals for mitigation or solutions.

Background to The Voice

On the 14th of October, Australians have been asked to make an alteration to their Constitution to establish a body known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice as follows:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The proposal for the Voice has a long history; eight years previously, as then Prime Minister Tony Abbott was considering constitutional recognition for ATSI people, Indigenous representatives argued than symbolic recognition was required. Noel Pearson, now a chief advocate of the Voice suggested a committee made of up Indigenous representatives to be able to review legislation that affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. "I'm proposing an alternative, that on some views is a higher alternative, in that it gives our people an active say in the laws that affect us, rather than a High Court adjudicated provision".

Around the world, the combined effects of landlordism and the structural changes resulting from the special COVID-19 period - which is still ongoing - have led to serious issues concerning interest rates, inflation, productivity, and rental prices. In Australia this has come to a particular debate with two somewhat progressive political parties - the governing Australian Labor Party and the minority Greens party - having very different views on solving the various issues relating to housing. The matter has particular interest for the Isocracy Network, as being the initiating body of the (now largely defunct) Labor-Green Alliance, and with several previous articles on housing and land related matters; including the concerns relating to negative gearing and capital gains and several articles on the benefits of land tax.

The two sides of the debate can be fairly summarised as follows. From the Labor Party, they wish to introduce a Housing Australia Future Fund. This involves making a capital investment of some $10 billion AUD and using the returns of some $500 million per annum to build social housing. For their part, the Greens have argued for $2bn of direct investment along with at least $1bn to for the States and Territories to institute a rent freeze for two years. The difference has come to a head with the Greens teaming up with the conservative coalition of the Liberal and National Parties to vote down the legislation and even potentially force a double-dissolution election. Labor's policy, for what it's worth, is supported by all the major housing advocacy groups in the country, including the Grattan Institute, Community Housing Industry Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Urban Development Institute, the Property Council, the CMFEU (construction), Industry Super Australia, and National Shelter, even if some have a preference that the HFFA should be even larger still.

June 21st was the northern hemisphere's Summer Solstice this year, however, it was June 23-24 that was the longest day in Russia. While there had been occasional cross-border attacks by Ukrainian forces as well as incursions by anti-government Russian nationalists fighting in Ukraine, for the most part, blowback from the massive escalation in the war launched by Vladimir Putin in February 2022 had not come home. However, within the space of a day, a heavily armed mercenary army was approaching Moscow, facing almost no resistance along the road. Yevgeny Prigozhin's Wagner Group can claim to be mostly responsible for Russia's only military accomplishment (victory would be too strong a term) in Ukraine this year, the capture of Bakhmut, but only after nine months of fighting and 20,000 casualties. But in not much more than nine hours they had effective control over two oblasts and were heading towards the capital (while it was rumoured Putin had already fled) when the rebellion ended. If that is what it even was in the first place.

by Jon Hillström. There is a lot of incoherence many communists when it comes to the invasion and war in Ukraine. People will claim to be "anti-war", that they support neither Russia nor Ukraine then try to frame it as an inter-imperialist proxy war despite the fact that it was directly caused by Russia's unilateral decision to invade. Often enough the same people will (1) oppose any and all sanctions on trade with Russia and (2) oppose supplying any arms or equipment to Ukraine.

Such a position leads to the situation where Western capitalists selling electronic/computer components to the Russian military-industrial complex (comparable to the US, making up >20% of global arms exports and 20% of all manufacturing jobs in Russia) which turn up in cruise missiles and drones that end up hitting shopping malls, apartment blocks, maternity hospitals etc. is apparently acceptable but sending missile defence systems that actually prevent such weapons systems from killing civilians is not?

The monopolistic aspect of the land, where income is derived without a contribution to production, was a cause of great criticism from even pro-capitalist class economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, and Henry George, who (along with the socialists, obviously) would argue for rents to be public property. In more modern times attention has been drawn to the monopolistic profits derived from the various and increasingly important intellectual property rights, part of the trajectory identified in Daniel Bell's "The Coming of Post-Industrial Society" in 1974. A rather neat distinction has been drawn by Joseph Schumpeter who recognised that there was a type of monopoly rent that does depend on additional production (innovation patents) that can become a traditional Ricardian rent, like land rent if it continues beyond that period. This can be further elaborated to the economic interest in monopolistic network effects as the means of distribution, from which industrialists such as AT&T's Theodore Vail, the co-inventor of Ethernet, Robert Metcalfe, and former ICANN president, Rod Beckstrom, as major contributors.

Presentation to the Melbourne Agnostics Group, May 13, 2023
By way of introduction, I must mention the International Society for Philosophers, founded by the late Dr Geoffrey Klempner in 2000, with some two-thousand members across ninety-three countries, and open to all who are interested. This particular presentation follows a tangent in the discussion that followed a presentation to SoFiA in February this year entitled "The Soul of the Machines? - The Current State of Advanced Artificial Intelligence". As a person who has worn more than a few hats in their life, it may not surprise those present that I have given presentations concerning both transhumanism and political economy in the past, dating back to an address in 2004 to the Melbourne Unitarian Church entitled "The Future of the Human Species". As for political economy, David Miller may recall a presentation I gave to the Existentialist Society in 2007 entitled "Towards An Existentialist Political Economy". Combining the two, there was also a presentation to the Australian Singularity Summit, in 2010 entitled "Social Formations in A Transhumanist World". In this presentation I will begin by describing what I mean by "neotopia", before moving on to describing the features and debates over political economy, then exploring the application of these debates to technological trajectories and especially those that relate to transhumanism on one hand and the wider environment.

Let us begin with this term "neotopia". Almost trivial to mention, the prefix comes from the ancient Greek prefix νεο- (neo-), itself from νέος (néos, “new, young”) with the suffix also from the old Helleni τόπια (tópia), itself from Greek τόπος (tópos, “place”). Almost everyone here would be familiar with similar well-known terms such as utopia and dystopia. The former refers to an imaginary place with excellent qualities. "Utopia", of course, with a "u" derived from the Greek "oὐ (ou) which is a negation. In other words, "no place". Thomas More, who coined the term "Utopia" in his well-known book of the title 1516 was well aware of the distinction between this "nowhere" (which would be followed centuries later "News from Nowhere" by William Morris in 1892) and "Eutopia" with an "eu", that is a "good place" which at least is used in medicine. "Utopia" is a curious publication, deliberately written to provoke, both idealised and idealistic, critical of his contemporary society, but also often satirical with many impractical or utterly implausible suggestions; a personal favourite is how children would wait for their supper with "great silence".

While it would be inaccurate to describe the past six months of the war in Ukraine as devolving into a total stalemate, what is undeniable is that the front lines have become very much fixed. It would be accurate though, to describe the present moment as one of abeyance. Russia's winter offensive, its attempt to seize all of the Donbas, has demonstrably failed. President Vladimir Putin and Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin have exchanged thousands of Russian lives for a few worthless square kilometres around Bakhmut, and whatever the final outcome there, have created another Ukrainian legend of heroic defence. Yet one of the main causes of this relative stasis does not find its origin in the key decision-making centres in either Kyiv or Moscow, but rather in Berlin.

The decisive moment of both 2023 and likely the entire war, will be Ukraine's coming major counteroffensive operation, of which only a literal handful of people are involved in the planning (which hasn't stopped experts, both credentialed and armchair, from prognosticating on its timing and location). Most of the world stands with Ukraine, as the international community can see brave people sacrificing so much to fight for the freedom of their homeland. However time and money are not infinite, and no matter how unjust it might be, the truth is global support for maintaining the current supply of arms to Kyiv is contingent on there being a prospect of victory. Were this to become a true stalemate then the current levels of material and financial support would, sooner or later, be declared unsustainable, and there would be immense pressure on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to allow peace negotiations to begin.

The Australian government has made the wrong decision to commit to purchasing up to eight nuclear-powered submarines as part of AUKUS, forecast to cost up to $368bn between now and the mid-2050s. Criticism against the decision can be expressed on three main points. Firstly, there's the matter of opportunity costs. This expense is far in excess of the benefits gained (or costs prevented). Secondly, the submarines are not actually designed to defend Australia, but rather they are an aggressive purchase that does not bode well for international peace and cooperation. Finally, as nuclear submarines, the purchase runs a real risk of weakening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in which Australia is a signatory.

The question of opportunity costs is something that was evocatively illustrated in Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous 1953 speech, "A Chance for Peace". Eisenhower was no pacifist by any stretch of the imagination; during World War II, he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe and became a five-star General. He was responsible for supervising the liberation of North Africa from Nazi and fascist control and the successful liberation of Normandy. Yet, he would also say several years later:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."