How to Survive the Coming Collapse

Joseph George Caldwell

10 January 2023

Background Information

For quite some time now I have written on the topic of changes that will occur to human society and the biosphere as fossil-fuel reserves deplete. In my earlier writings, I focused mainly on describing what I believe will be the likely eventual overall outcome. I did not write a lot about responses to the situation as it unfolds, other than to describe the likely nature of those responses and their likely effect on the eventual outcome. This article describes actions that may be taken to affect the outcome in a significant way.

My assessment of the likely future is a small human population living in a biosphere in which the species diversity is substantially reduced from its present level. The basis for this assessment is my view that the present mass species extinction will continue as long as human population and industrial activity remain at high levels, that they will continue at high levels as long as fossil fuel is available in large amounts, that this availability could last sufficiently long to cause substantial additional damage to the biosphere, and that human numbers and industrial activity will decline rapidly – collapse, if you will – as fossil-fuel reserves exhaust. For a discussion of the rationale for these assertions, refer to my brief article, The Shape of Things to Come, posted at https://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheShapeOfThingsToCome.htm, or to a more detailed discussion in the article, A New World Order: The Coming Transition from Fossil Fuels and Capitalism to Nuclear Energy and Eco-Socialism, posted at https://www.foundationwebsite.org/ANewWorldOrder.htm.

Humankind has known the nature of the ecological and humanitarian crises for at least a century. During that time, a massive portion of the planet’s species has been made extinct. Since humankind has been unable or unwilling to effectively address the problem when it was much easier to address, when there was much less damage to the biosphere and hence much more left to save, it would seem that there is little reason to believe that it will address the problem now, when the problem is much more difficult and there is much less to save, or that it will address it at any time in the future, when it is even more difficult to solve and even less of the planet’s biodiversity remains to be saved.

This bleak assessment assumes, of course, that the present planetary management system (growth-based economics, capitalism, liberal democracy, laissez-faire free enterprise, high human numbers and industrial activity) remains in place. If there is any reason to believe that the crises will be resolved, it would appear that this system would have to be ended, and replaced with one that works to preserve biodiversity and promote a high quality of human life for most people.

In essence, the only things (actions, events) that really matter in the long term with respect to the outcome of the crises are those that have a significant effect on the planet’s biodiversity. As long as a species does not become extinct, it has the possibility of recovering from a decline, and the planet’s biodiversity – its genetic pool – remains essentially unaffected. From this perspective, what matters is the effect of the crises on the ongoing mass extinction. Responses to the crises that limit or stop the mass extinction matter. Other responses do not. Since the root cause of the mass species extinction is high human numbers and industrial activity, it follows that the extinction will not end unless and until human numbers and industrial activity fall to low levels, and the longer that they continue at high levels, the less diverse the biosphere will become, and, since extinction is permanent, will remain.

A number of readers, evidently unsettled by my stark assessment, have asked questions such as, “What is the solution to the global ecological and humanitarian crises?”; or “Can something be done to change the outcome?; or “Is there a way to survive the collapse?” While there is no solution that allows for a continuation of high levels of human population and industrial activity, there are solutions that will bring an end to the mass species extinction and an end to billions of people living in misery. This article explores one such solution.

The Present Situation: Global Ecological and Humanitarian Crises

The present situation concerning the state of the biosphere and the condition of humanity is dire. Large human numbers and a high level of industrial activity have caused massive pollution, destruction of natural habitat, the (human-caused) sixth mass species extinction, and billions of people to live in crowding, squalor, deprivation, oppression, want and misery. A good summary of the situation is presented in JG Estiot’s article, Overpopulation: The Elephant in the Room, posted at https://jgestiot.medium.com/overpopulation-the-elephant-in-the-room-3019d7e98ead.

In the past, there has been much rejection of the concept of human overpopulation. Now that global pollution is rampant, that a major portion of wildlife and natural forests have been destroyed, and that the climate-change effects of global warming are quite evident, acceptance is growing that overpopulation is a serious problem. A recent article along these lines is Jared A. Brock’s article, Now that I’m a Dad, I Can Finally Be Honest about Overpopulation, posted at https://survivingtomorrow.org/now-that-im-a-dad-i-can-finally-be-honest-about-overpopulation-af907d00d251.

For the past century, most people have been ignorant of or in denial of the concept of human overpopulation of Earth. Some claim that there is not an overpopulation problem, but an overconsumption problem. Others evidently believe that the mass extinction of species from the biosphere in which humanity lives and on which it is totally dependent for its existence and quality of life is not a concern.

Many people believe that a high quality of human life in a species-rich biosphere can be achieved with a human population on the order of several billion. That is not true. Substantial changes to the biosphere, such as mass deforestation, started to manifest when the human population reached the size of 300 million, about the year 950 CE. That population was using low-level technology, and a relatively small amount of the planet’s recurrent solar energy was committed to human activity. Now, human activity is based heavily on high technology, using from ten to one-hundred times the amount of energy per person as the low-technology society did. The burden of human activity on the biosphere is roughly proportional to the amount of energy consumed by the population. From this point of view, the burden of a low-technology, low-energy-using population of 300 million people is comparable to the burden of a much smaller high-technology, high-energy-using population.

To have a small impact on the biosphere, the global human population must be on the order of three million to three hundred million, depending on how much energy that society uses. Moreover, it is not simply the amount of energy that is a limiting factor. For a human population to live in harmony with the biosphere, it is necessary that all of the products produced by human society can be metabolized (assimilated) by the biosphere at the same rate at which they are being produced.

A high-technology society requires a population of a certain size. Based on mitochondrial evidence, it appears that the human population (Homo sapiens) of Earth was at one time as low as 12,000 people. While a population of that size is long-term sustainable, it is unlikely that it could develop or maintain an advanced technological society. History shows that a high-technology society can thrive with a human population of on the order of five million people (e.g., modern-day Sweden). From the viewpoints of promoting a high quality of human life and a species-rich biosphere, human population should range between, say, three to three-hundred million people, with only a few million making use of high-energy-use high technology. A population substantially larger than that destroys the biosphere and results in a low quality of human life for a large number of human beings.

Many people don’t realize or accept that, in today’s system of a very large human population, the level of freedom is very low for most people. It has been estimated that for much of the 200,000 years of modern man’s existence, the human population was on the order of about five million people. The amount of habitable land on Earth is about 24.6 million square miles, or about 63.7 million square kilometers. The population density on habitable land was therefore about 7.8 persons per 100 square kilometers. The population density on habitable land is now about 126 persons per square kilometer, or about 1.26 persons per hectare (3.1 persons per acre). That is equivalent to .79 hectares per person (1.95 acres per person). Without access to advanced modern agriculture (high-yield varieties, irrigation, fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, mechanization, processing and distribution), that is too little land to support a person.

The world is now in a situation where the current large population cannot be supported without modern agriculture. This means that, to survive, people are now dependent on the global industrial system. They are no longer free. They no longer have access to nature’s bounty, in terms of living space, sustenance or quality of habitat (access to a species-rich environment). They are, in fact, slaves to the system. All land use is now rigidly controlled. The population density is now so high that most people live in unpleasant, crowded conditions with inadequate nourishment. As long as the planet’s human population remains in the billions, this condition of deprivation will continue. Most people are condemned to work as wage slaves in work that is unnatural and unsatisfying at best, and meaningless and onerous at worst, while a small proportion of the population control all of the planet’s land and other resources and live very well, supported by the wage slaves.

As long as human society continues at a population level in the billions, destruction of the biosphere will continue and the quality of human life will be low for billions. As long as human numbers and industrial activity continue at a high level, the mass species extinction will continue. It has been estimated (anthropologist Richard Leakey) that human activity is causing the extinction of on the order of thirty thousand species per year. Of all the damage being done to the biosphere, species extinction is in a class by itself. Species extinction is permanent. Mankind has destroyed more than half of all virgin forests and large mammals. As long as that destruction does not result in species extinction, it is recoverable. To end the species extinction, it is necessary to reduce the size of the human population by a factor of about one thousand, i.e., to reduce it from its current level of eight billion to about eight million.

How can this reduction be achieved? There are several ways in which this might happen, including global nuclear war, the exhaustion of fossil-fuel reserves, and climate change caused by industrial greenhouse gasses. A drawback of these ways is the fact that they may not occur soon or rapidly, enabling the mass species extinction to continue for some time. This article explores a way in which large human numbers and industrial activity may be reduced very soon and very quickly.

The Nature of the Present Planetary Management System

The present global economic system is growth-based economics, implemented mainly as capitalism (private ownership of the means of production, mainly through corporations). All of the world’s nations are calling for economic growth. No nation has ever adopted steady-state economics for its economic system – all use growth-based economics. The present system is causing much destruction to the biosphere, is driving a mass extinction, has robbed people of access to bountiful nature, and has enslaved billions as wage slaves in low-quality lives of deprivation, oppression, hopelessness and misery. The present system serves only the present controllers of the planet, who enjoy lives of comfort and luxury at the expense of the biosphere and the rest of humanity.

The present controllers of the world call for a high population and economic growth because it is a good system for enslaving and controlling people. A population in the billions is not free. It lives in crowding, deprivation, oppression and want. It also lives in hopelessness. At present, it seems as if people have nowhere to turn. Their day-to-day survival depends crucially on the ability of the modern economic system to produce food, and the amount needed can be produced only by industrial agriculture, diverting most of the planet’s resources to sustaining human beings rather than the rest of the biosphere. Today’s masses are in a situation like the slaves chained to a Roman galley. Their survival is wedded to the survival of the galley. “Row well, and live!” They despise the ship, but they must work hard for its survival to ensure their own. Today’s masses are similarly wedded to the global economic system that enslaves them. That system uses them as wage slaves, but if they destroy it, most of them will perish.

Why Nothing Effective Is Being Done to Solve the Problem

Now that the effects of greenhouse-gas warming of the atmosphere are becoming very apparent, more people are accepting that large human numbers and industrial activity are causing substantial changes to the biosphere. The dire nature of the situation is discussed at length at international conferences, but no effective actions have been taken to resolve the problem.

Since the situation is so dire and so evident and subject to so much attention, it is reasonable to ask why nothing effective is being done to solve the problem. The answer to this question is simple. As mentioned, the global economic system is growth-based economics. The leaders of all nations are calling for more economic activity, not less. Society’s controllers and leaders are not about to abandon this system, which rewards them very well.

In short, the basic reason why nothing effective is being done to address the global ecological and social crises is that there is no motivation for those in charge to do so. In fact, they are highly motivated to continue the present system. The present system is based on economics, which is the science of allocation of scarce resources. For such a system to work well, essential resources need to be in short supply. The Earth’s biosphere can provide a high level of living for a small human population, but not for an extremely large one that is pressing resources to the limit.

Today’s human society is characterized by deliberately induced scarcity, accomplished by pushing human population to unsustainable levels, to enable society’s controllers to use economics to manage and control the population to work hard to provide wealth for those controllers. The controllers do not care about the biosphere, mass extinction, global pollution, annihilation of wildlife, or the quality of life of the masses or future generations of inhabitants of the planet. They are obsessed with greed, which, as Bertrand Russell observed in his Nobel Lecture, is one of the main desires of politicians (acquisitiveness, rivalry, vanity, and love of power).

In order for society’s leaders to work to solve the global ecological and social crises, they must be motivated to do so. Unless this happens, nothing will be done. At present, they are motivated to continue these crises. That is, for example, why they cynically promote population policies such as “demographic transition,” which will allow the human population to remain at very high levels. The following paragraphs explore one way in which society’s leaders might be motivated to address the crises.

A Solution to the Global Ecological and Social Crises Based on Public Benefit Corporations

As mentioned, the primary driver of environmental destruction is growth-based economics. The global growth-based economic system is based on capitalism, which is implemented primarily through “C” type corporations (“C” for “conventional”). For a C corporation, the primary goal of the corporation is to increase shareholder value, measured in monetary terms. Recently, an alternative type of corporation has been introduced – the “public benefit corporation,” or “B” corporation (or “PBC” corporation). For a B corporation, the corporation goals need not be limited to increasing shareholder financial value. This article explores a way in which B corporations may bring about a rapid lowering of human population levels and industrial activity.

Here follows an extract from the Wikipedia article on Benefit Corporations.

‘In the United States, a benefit corporation or B corporation (or in several jurisdictions including Delaware, a public-benefit corporation or PBC) is a type of for-profit corporate entity, authorized by 35 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, that includes positive impact on society, workers, the community and the environment in addition to profit as its legally defined goals, in that the definition of "best interest of the corporation" is specified to include those impacts. Laws concerning conventional corporations (referred to as "C corporations" by the IRS) typically do not specify the definition of "best interest of the corporation", which has led to the interpretation that increasing shareholder value (profits and/or share price) is the only overarching or compelling interest of a corporation. Benefit corporations may not differ much from traditional C corporations. A C corporation may change to a B corporation merely by stating in its approved corporate bylaws that it is a benefit corporation; however in certain jurisdictions (especially Delaware), the terms "public benefit corporation" or "PBC" are also required to be in the legal name of B corporations.’

Before proceeding further, some discussion of the history of conventional corporations will be presented, focusing on their role in developing the modern industrial world.

The first large multinational corporation was the Dutch East India Company. Here follows a description of it, from the Wikipedia article by that name.

‘The United East India Company (Dutch: Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, the VOC) was a chartered company established on the 20th March 1602 by the States General of the Netherlands amalgamating existing companies into the first joint-stock company in the world, granting it a 21-year monopoly to carry out trade activities in Asia. Shares in the company could be bought by any resident of the United Provinces and then subsequently bought and sold in open-air secondary markets (one of which became the Amsterdam Stock Exchange). It is sometimes considered to have been the first multinational corporation. It was a powerful company, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts, negotiate treaties, strike its own coins, and establish colonies.

‘Statistically, the VOC eclipsed all of its rivals in the Asia trade. Between 1602 and 1796 the VOC sent almost a million Europeans to work in the Asia trade on 4,785 ships, and netted for their efforts more than 2.5 million tons of Asian trade goods. By contrast, the rest of Europe combined sent only 882,412 people from 1500 to 1795, and the fleet of the English (later British) East India Company, the VOC's nearest competitor, was a distant second to its total traffic with 2,690 ships and a mere one-fifth the tonnage of goods carried by the VOC. The VOC enjoyed huge profits from its spice monopoly through most of the 17th century.

‘Having been set up in 1602 to profit from the Malukan spice trade, the VOC established a capital in the port city of Jayakarta in 1609 and changed the city name into Batavia (now Jakarta). Over the next two centuries the company acquired additional ports as trading bases and safeguarded their interests by taking over surrounding territory. It remained an important trading concern and paid an 18% annual dividend for almost 200 years. Much of the labour that built its colonies was from people it had enslaved.’

At the time when the Dutch East India Company was founded, the world consisted mainly of a small number of technologically advanced European nations having much military power and a large number of primitive ethnic groups having little power. The corporation model proved to be a fabulously successful system for motivating and implementing control of the primitive groups. This model was successfully used by the Dutch, the British, the Portuguese, the French and other European nations.

Using the corporation model, in a space of just 400 years, the developed nations accomplished an incredible transformation of the planet’s biosphere from one that had been relatively stable for thousands of years to one that is undergoing global warming and a mass species extinction at a very fast pace. The result of the development achieved by corporations has been massive pollution of the environment and annihilation of much natural habitat. This planet-level transformation was accomplished in the blink of an evolutionary eye, as spectacular as natural events such as asteroid collisions, ice ages, and large volcanic eruptions.

A prime reason why the corporation model was so successful in accomplishing its goal of income generation is that it extended the corporation owners an incredible opportunity to succeed with limited liability. Through corporations, the profits were privatized while the risks, such as the cost of failure or lawsuit, were socialized (absorbed by the government through measures such as limited liability, bankruptcy and government bail-outs). Through the use of corporations, the stockholders were able to engage in risky ventures without fear of catastrophic personal loss. The incentive was intoxicating. Through corporatism, humanity became a voracious consumer of nature, to the point where, today, it has annihilated and much of wildlife and caused the extinction of millions of species.

Until recently, the sole objective of corporations was to increase shareholder wealth. The corporation model has been used not just for conquest and development of foreign lands, but to transform all manner of necessary social functions, such as health care, education, transportation, communications, and defense into profit-making endeavors. Now that public benefit corporations are available, the corporation model can be used to accomplish other objectives, as effectively as it once did for wealth creation. All that is necessary is to tailor the corporation’s purpose to the desired objective, in this case the establishment of a planetary management system that promotes high-quality human life in a species-rich biosphere.

Although the public benefit corporation model was introduced just recently, it has grown rapidly. In April 2010, Maryland became the first U.S. state to pass benefit-corporation legislation, and as of March 2018, 35 states and Washington, D.C., have followed suit. B Lab (“B” for “beneficial”) is a US non-profit organization, founded in 2006, that certifies for-profit corporations as meeting certain standards of transparency, accountability, sustainability, and performance, with an aim to create value for society, not just for the shareholders. Today there are more than 4,000 B Corps across 77 countries and 153 industries, with 2,000 of them in the US and Canada.

At the present time, the organizational structure of the world is reminiscent of its organization at the time of inception of the Dutch East India Company. It consists of a small number of technologically creative nations having much military power and a large number of nations that perform extractive and manufacturing operations, but have little power.

A major reason for the global ecological and humanitarian crises is the fact that, with respect to economic activity, the 200-odd nations of the world are operating as independent sovereign nations, with no central control. This situation has resulted in a global “Tragedy of the Commons” in which all nations are striving to increase economic activity – which destroys nature – without any limits other than those imposed by resource constraints.

The main reason why environmental groups have been so ineffective in slowing, stopping or reversing environmental damage is that they lack both economic and military power. They are not-for-profit groups run as charities, asking for and dependent on donor support. With the introduction of B corporations, this situation can change dramatically and quickly.

A Possible Implementation of the Concept

The concept of using public benefit corporations to address the global ecological and social crises is this. Establish a number of B corporations that include in their interest both generation of revenue and the establishment of a long-term-sustainable planetary management system that promotes a high quality of human life in a species-rich biosphere. An example of such a system is as follows (taken from The Shape of Things to Come, posted at https://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheShapeOfThingsToCome.htm ). Note that the government of the new planetary management system is established by the corporation.

1. Government: A unitary system of government, based on representative democracy and eco-socialism.

2. Global organizational structure: The world is divided into approximately 100 city-states based on the concept of bioregionalism, with maximum population of eight million per city-state. Industrial activity is permitted only within the cities. (This includes agriculture.)

3. Economic features: No capitalism. No private ownership of means of production. No property income (rents, interest-bearing loans, profits). Fiat money. (Economics is the science of the management of scarcity, of efficient allocation of limited resources. The proposed system will be designed to operate in harmony with the biosphere, so that natural resource limits will not impose global constraints on human activity. There will be no scarcity and no poverty. Economics may be used to accomplish efficient allocation of renewable resources, but not to allocate nonrenewable resources. To this extent, the economic system may be characterized as steady-state economics in the tradition of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Herman Daly, Leopold Kohr and Ernst Friedrich Schumacher.)

4. Welfare: Guaranteed employment, basic income. No poverty.

5. Health care: Free basic health-care.

6. Education: Universal; mandatory eight years; free merit-based beyond eight years.

7. Judicial: Roman law (civil law). No prisons. If violate laws, then reeducate. If reeducation is not successful, must live outside the city.

8. Rights: All human beings are full citizens of the unitary state. Basically, human rights are the same as specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but with “symmetry” so that the cost to society of providing the benefit of the right is reasonable. All people have a right to travel anywhere on the planet. No right to own land or fixed property (land, buildings). No right to own other human beings (slaves) or living creatures. No factory farming. No battery production of animals.

9. Ethics: Consequential and symmetric, à la Nicholas Taleb.

10. Energy: All industrial energy is from renewable biomass. No fossil fuels. No solar (solar electric, hydro, wind, tides). No nuclear.

11. Defense / security: Not described here.

The preceding list identifies a proposed organizational structure. With respect to physical structure, the following model is proposed. This model is adapted from the model described in detail in the book, The Planet Masters, Book 2: Transition, posted at https://www.foundationwebsite.org/ThePlanetMastersBook2Transition.htm, and summarized as follows:

‘The system would partition the Earth into three types of areas: urban areas, which were industrialized; rural areas, which included permanent settlements but no industrial activity; and wild areas, which included neither industrial activity nor permanent human settlements.

‘The term “industrial activity” was construed to mean any organized activity involving technology more advanced than hunting and gathering, including agriculture. People were free to go anywhere in the three types of areas and to work or recreate there, subject to the restrictions on industrial activity and permanence of settlements.

‘The vision for the planet was one in which 99 percent of the planet’s surface was wild, and one percent was urban or rural.’

The model proposed here, adapted from the preceding one, is as follows:

1.The planet will be rewilded to a high degree, such as 98-99 percent. That is, 98-99 percent of the planet is wild and 1-2 percent is urban or rural. (The concept is as proposed in E. O. Wilson’s book, Half-Earth, but raising the proportion to be rewilded from about half to 98-99 percent.)

2. The total human population consists of a high-tech (urban) population of about five to six million and a low-tech (rural or wild) population of about 300 million.

3. The five to six million high-tech people would be located in about 100 cities of population about 50,000 each (or, perhaps, 200 cities of population about 30,000 each). These cities would be distributed along the ocean coasts of six habitable continents, North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. The interiors of all continents would be wild. All of the areas outside of the continents (i.e., Oceania and Antarctica) would be wild.

Discussion of the Concept

In order for the corporation to succeed in its planetary-management goals, it will need to be very successful financially in the context of the present global system. Examples of firms that might do well include: (1) a firm selling small modular nuclear reactors; (2) an agribusiness firm; (3) an arms merchant; (4) a telecommunications firm; (5) a transportation firm.

The process of chartering a benefit corporation is straightforward – very similar to that of chartering a conventional corporation. What is required is terminology in the charter, the bylaws, or the name, that declare the corporation to be a benefit corporation. At the present time, benefit corporations are chartered by most states, but only a few countries, such as the US and Italy. For a conventional corporation, it is unethical for the corporation to engage in activities that work against the fiduciary welfare of the stockholders. For a benefit corporation, it is ethical for the corporation to work toward goals other than the singular goal of increasing stockholder wealth.

The action of chartering a benefit corporation to establish a long-term-sustainable planetary management system is legal. Once established as a benefit corporation, it is ethical for such a corporation to engage in activities to further or achieve that goal. (“Ethics” refers to rules of conduct that further the realization of an organizations goals. Ethics differs fundamentally from morality, which refers to a person’s inner sense of what is right and wrong. Some social commentators, such as Thom Hartmann and Jared Brock, have criticized the morality of aspects of corporatism such as granting the rights of personhood to corporations and the ongoing process of replacing ownership of property by individuals to ownership by corporations who charge subscription fees to individuals. This article does not address the morality of corporatism, which is a personal matter, just the ethics of it. Some people feel that destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest is morally justified, to provide employment and food for people alive today; others are morally outraged at the extinction of millions of species and the permanent degradation of the quality of life for all future human beings for this purpose.)

It is important that the benefit corporation be granted authority commensurate with the importance and difficulty of its mission. Its powers should be similar to those granted to the Dutch East India Company, viz., to wage war and engage in conquest. While this may appear to be an extreme measure, it must be kept in mind that the current crises are matters of life and death for billions. Granting of such authority is not without precedent: it was granted to the Dutch East India Company, and its corporate purpose was simply to generate wealth for the stockholders, not to save a planet. For example, if the Government of Brazil persisted in the destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest, which is of vital importance to the human species and countless others, the corporation has the authority to terminate that government.

The concept of using benefit corporations to establish a planetary management system is considered to have a reasonable chance of success if the benefit corporation’s charter bestows it with the military and economic means to accomplish its mission. The current approach to resolving the crises is doomed because those who might wish to end the ongoing mass extinction have no such power. Their pleas for an end to environmental destruction are useless against the powerful global economic system that presses for more economic growth and, it follows, more destruction of the biosphere. Current environmental groups are little more than public-relations firms with no power to effect meaningful accomplishment of their stated goals.

Corporations based on a monetary-profit-only basis were incredibly effective in destroying the biosphere and human quality of life; corporations based on a public-benefits model can be just as effective in stopping the environmental destruction, stopping the mass species extinction, and bringing a high quality of life to humankind.

While most benefit corporations that exist today are chartered by states of the United States, any country of the world is free to establish its own benefit corporations. The leaders of benefit corporations have an incredible incentive to succeed. The prize is control of the planet, or a continent of it. Whether a single benefit corporation assumes control of the entire planet, or whether several such corporations assume control of individual continents remains to be seen. According to Bertrand Russell, it is unlikely for a single power to control the planet since, without competition, it would lack the cohesion necessary to keep it strong.

The founding of the Dutch East India Company marked the beginning of a new social era for mankind – the age of corporatism. Until the formal introduction of public benefit corporations in 2010, the overarching goal of corporations was to increase wealth for shareholders. Under this model, corporations transformed the biosphere from a state of relative balance to one of mass extinction with human beings replacing much of wildlife, and created a society in which billions of people live in crowding, deprivation, oppression and misery. Corporatism is a powerful model, and it will continue. Under the new model of a public benefit corporation, however, some corporations will work to resolve the ecological and social crises that the previous model so efficiently and effectively created. Profit-based corporatism destroyed the biosphere, drove human population to unsupportable levels, and enslaved humanity through overpopulation-induced scarcity (“supply-side economics”). Like the mythological phoenix arising from its ashes, public-benefit corporatism has the potential to stop the destruction of the biosphere, restore the natural world, and free humanity from its freedomless, wage-slave bondage.

The age of the sovereign nation-state is drawing to a close. Under primitive conditions, hundreds of states could function without restraint and cause little significant change to the biosphere. With modern technology, that system is destroying the planet and causing human misery on a grand scale. For mankind to realize a high-quality existence in a species-rich environment, under technology, it is necessary for the system to be under control of a planetary management system that works to achieve that goal, instead of the goal of generating wealth for a few people without regard to the cost to the biosphere or to future generations. In short, it is necessary to manage the planet as a single entity, along the lines of Kenneth Boulding’s Spaceship Earth. This can be accomplished by corporatism, not by a collection of independent nation states. (For discussion of Kenneth Boulding’s concepts, see the recent articles by his son, Russell Boulding, on Medium.com.)

What is the likelihood that a public benefit corporation will move seriously to resolve the global ecological and social crises? At the present time, very low. Corporations will adopt public benefit status and certification simply as “window dressing,” to make it appear as if they are doing something meaningful to address these crises, when in fact, they continue business as usual. With respect to resolving the crises, public benefit corporations, for now, are just another “Bright Green Lie.” In the longer term, however, when collapse becomes more manifest and the situation becomes more dire, one or more such firms will realize that the present system is moribund, and that their survival and success rest with a new order, of a much smaller human population. At that time, the public benefit corporation will become an effective agent for change.

When Will Change Occur?

It took profit-based corporatism about 400 years to wreak havoc with the biosphere and establish a global population that is so large that it is totally dependent on the global industrial system for its food. Obviously, if it took another 400 years for public benefit corporations to resolve the ecological and social crises, little of the biosphere’s diversity would remain to save. How quickly could public-benefit corporations resolve the crises? It is not expected that benefit corporations would attempt to bring the present global industrial system to an end. Such a goal is not reasonable, since the present system is very powerful. What is reasonable is that their role in establishing a new planetary management system would begin in earnest when the present system begins to collapse. At that time, massive resources can be mobilized quickly to take action. When will such an opportunity arise? Who knows. The science of forecasting is not very good at predicting the timing of future events. In any event, those who have prepared for the coming changes will have a much better chance of succeeding in realizing their goals than those who have not prepared.

All nations of the world have embraced economic growth, and all are active participants in continuation of the current system that is destroying the biosphere, continuing the mass species extinction, and dooming billions of human beings to lives of deprivation and misery. With respect to the goal of stopping this destruction of nature, they are the enemy. As Walt Kelly’s Pogo observed, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.” They are destroyers of the habitat for humanity and all other species of the planet. In the battle to save the biosphere, they are fair game.

All nations are guilty of the crime of biospheric destruction. The US manufactures millions of tons of toxic chemicals and plastics that pollute the environment. It destroyed the Great Plains and the virgin forests of North America. Brazil is in the process of destroying the Amazon Rain Forest. Canada destroyed the Canadian Prairie and is producing massive amounts of industrial energy from tar sands. The nations of Africa have decimated its mammals. India has brought the tiger to the brink of extinction.

The planet’s current controllers are working diligently to continue this system that serves them so well. They have declared total war on nature, the biosphere, the rest of humanity, and all future generations of denizens of the planet. It is high time to replace this destructive and cruel system with one that protects, preserves and restores the biosphere, and provides a high-quality existence for human beings. It is high time to reject this system and replace it with a better one. The present controllers are waging total war against the biosphere and the rest of humanity. It is high time to fight back to free mankind from its bondage, to stop the mass extinction, and to save what remains of the biosphere’s biodiversity.

The members of the benefit corporation may be motivated by personal moral feelings that they are accomplishing something worthwhile in stopping the sixth extinction. Furthermore, if they contemplate the destruction being wrought on nature – on their own home, on the birthright of their offspring and all future denizens of Earth – by the world’s nations, they will be righteously enraged to action. As General George Patton famously observed, “When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do.” And “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

The current controllers of the planet are destroying the biosphere. They are working to sustain a system that holds billions of people in slavery and misery. They are working to continue the mass species extinction, which will forever decimate the species diversity of the biosphere and doom all future generations of mankind to life on a desolate planet. Does this not make you angry? Does this not spur you to action? The current controllers have mankind and the biosphere in a stranglehold, but their grip will loosen as fossil fuels exhaust. At one point, the time will be ripe, and the opportunity will arise, to replace the present system. Until then, all that can be done is to prepare for that day. The establishment of public benefit corporations was a good step in the right direction.

On the Issue of Survival

Relative to the issue of survival, most individuals will not survive the coming collapse. The only reasonable hope is for survival of a benefit corporation that is successful in establishing a planetary management system that promotes a high quality of life for human beings in a species-rich environment. If your gene pool is well represented in that of the benefit corporation, and the corporation succeeds in its mission, your gene pool will survive.

In order for a benefit corporation to have a high likelihood of survival, it should have its operations and personnel distributed around the globe, to reduce the risk of failure from a local catastrophic event. As the modern industrial world collapses, the benefit corporation must be prepared to defend its members from attacks from desperate people. A significant advantage of a corporation over a nation is that it possesses the authority to accept or expel members at will. That freedom will prove to be essential in the chaos of collapse.

The era of sovereign nations is drawing to a close. Under democracy, as Plato warned, people elect bad leaders who cater to mankind’s basest desires. The future belongs to corporate entities that are committed to ideals that serve mankind and the biosphere well. Corporations are not democratic. They are like ships on the ocean, or Kenneth Boulding’s Spaceship Earth, subject to high-level control. If mankind has a future of much freedom in a species-rich biosphere, it will be under a system of one or a small number of polities that are committed to a mission that is consistent with that future. Will people accept this? Of course they will, and gladly, since it serves their best interests. It offers the prospect of freedom in a species-rich environment. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, people will accept limitations on big things as long as they have substantial freedom in little things.