I wonder if it is possible for communities to display signs of stress differently from individuals. Since ‘mob mentality’ is different from individual behaviours, especially in times of stress, it may be that groups will have behaviours that are distinctly unique from individuals. We may be able to monitor stress in individuals, and from that determine what their stressors are, and from that identify the actual obstructions that prevent their needs from being addressed – how do we do this in groups?

A sense of community is built by doing emotional work together as a group.  Since our culture tries to avoid emotional work in general, community is a fragile thing, but provides immense resilience.  Perhaps the lack of a sense of community can be used as an indicator of underlying community obstructions?

And would there be a parallel in families?  Is there a sense of family that can be disrupted when there are obstructions at a family scale?

 

Recently, I read about Chronic Stress, and the effects it has on human psychology and physiology.  CSHS says there is a simple recipe for stress (NUTS, being Novelty, Unexpected, Threat to Ego/Self, and loss of Sense of control), and the stress response is generally good.  It’s the long term exposure to stress that is the problem, because it changes you.  I wonder, and I’m investigating, if Chronic Stress is a good indicator that needs aren’t being met, and thus it should be possible to detect if people are stressed, and then identify what the stressors in the community are.  This is sounding suspiciously like Human Development (exploring the Capabilities, Freedoms, and choices of the population), but I am seeing this a little more truncated that that.  I’m trying to see what impact alternative designs will have on a community based on what is currently preventing their needs from being met.  No sense making time available if it will only be used to feed addictions (for example, like workaholism, or Starbucks, or promiscuity) that won’t ultimately raise the actualize quality of life within the community.

Perhaps there is a way to use stress as a means to identify the obstructions within a society that prevent needs from being met.  Perhaps it can be quantified by measuring the fraction of time that people use to meet each of their needs, and the time weighted fraction of needs that aren’t met.

For example, lets imagine…

• PTSD obstructs around 10% of the population from being able to meet their needs effectively.
• Imagine that these people are express the symptoms of ‘trouble sleeping’, ‘distant from people’, ‘unable to relax’, and ‘not feeling physically safe’, and this relates to the needs of ‘Rest’, ‘Child-care’, and ‘Security’.
• Imagine that these activities would normally take 550 min/d/ca, while total needs take 880 min/d/ca. Imagine also that the symptoms are observed 25% of the time, and there are no other obstructions.
• Thus, the Effectiveness would be [(880-550)*100% + 550 * (100%-25%)]/880 = 84%
• Obstructed time use would be 880/0.84 = 1042 min/d/ca.
• Across the population, this would be (880×90% + 1042*10%)=896 min/d/ca., or the equivalent of an additional 16 min/d/ca.
• 16 min/d/ca is 1.1% of a day.
• The slope of the time/resource curve at capacity is 9.5 min/d/ca/gHa.
• To get the same improvement in the Actualized Quality of Life, the Community Managed Ecological Footprint would have to be increased from 7.6 gHa to (7.6+ 16/9.5=) 9.3 gHa, an increase of 22.5%.

In this example, activities affecting the Effectiveness of a community will have 20x the impact of activities affecting the resource availability of the community.

The US is vastly over capacity – I don’t have the numbers precisely, but they have a footprint that is about twice their biocapacity.  If we tried to address this through ‘efficiency’ alone, we’d have to increase the time it take people to meet their needs by roughly 80 minutes per day – that’s more than all the time spent in paid employment that meets needs in Canada, and that would be politically impossible to achieve (either wages would have to drop significantly, or age of retirement would have to rise significantly, or both).  By combining efficiency with effectiveness, though, a fraction of the time that isn’t being used effectively to meet needs (say 400+ minutes per day) could be reduced by that 80 minutes per day, and there would be no need to eliminate retirement, or accept 3rd world wages.  People would have fewer unmet needs, and the total wealth in the community would increase.

 

So, all pages here so far talk about the efficiency by which people use their time to meet their needs – either directly, or by converting resources into the means to meet needs. Nothing talks about effectiveness, and that’s where this all has to go.
The poorest people in Canada use around 900 minutes per day to meet their needs. The rest of their time is not spent meeting needs. I don’t believe that everyone in the poorest decile of household income have all of their needs met, so that means that even if they have 1/3 of their time available to meet needs, for some reason they can not use the time to meet needs. Something prevents them from doing so.
Perhaps it is an obstruction from inside their self, or their family, or their community, but there is some obstruction.  Perhaps it’s racism, or addiction, or domestic violence.  Perhaps it’s cultural baggage, or a lack of education.  But whatever it is, I think it makes people not completely effective at using their time to meet their needs.

I think:

• People use their time to meet their wants and needs, or they use their time convert resources into the means to meet their wants and needs.
• And at the same time, people act at all times (there will be some specific exceptions) to meet their perceived needs.

Which implies that the perception of needs for most people is part of the obstructions.  Perhaps the difference between ‘surviving’ and ‘thriving’ is knowing when your needs are met and thus when you can meet wants at your leisure?

This ‘effectiveness’ would provide a perpendicular dimension to the Time/Resource curve already discussed, and may look something like this:

This curve would be generated by asking community members about their consumption habits, time use, and what symptoms they experience that predicts what obstructions they experience.  It would be a time-weighted average across each sub-set of the community, and all of the aggregated data is plotted together (average for the group, plus really should show distribution bars).

So, if a respondent demonstrates that 70% of their needs are met, the data would include which 70%, so there would be like Table B1 in my paper here – except that it would be the average values of how much of each need isn’t met within the community.   The community as a whole can then be checked to see how it would end up responding to any given alternative design, based on the obstructions that prevent the population from making full use of the development.

In all economic transactions, the value of a product or service is perceived by the vendor to be less than the selling price, while the value perceived by the buyer is greater than the selling price. Or rather than the price, the value of the money equal to the selling price, although that distinction is not truly relevant.

But then, it is asked, what is the value of ‘Green’? Or, what is the value of the ecological systems that surround us and provide us with ecological benefits?

As there is no vendor, there is no value to the vendor, and thus the selling price may be zero. In the concept of Environmental Economics, the ‘Government’, as the steward of The Commons, is able to set a price that reflects the price of those environmental benefits.  Of course, the concept also assumes the government is effectively omniscient, omnipotent, and wise, three conditions that are not supported by the evidence.

Likewise, there really isn’t a buyer. Why would you pay for air?  No one can stop air from reaching me for free.  But imagine if one could, then I would pay anything I owned to get my next-to-last gasp.

So, in the case of a commodity such as air, the value is less than the selling price, which is therefore nothing, and also greater than the purchase price, which could be anything. The concept of value must be uncoupled from price for at least some environmental features.

Perhaps value of the environmental feature can be estimated from a replacement cost. Thus, while I can’t estimate the value of sunlight, I can estimate the economic value of providing a similar quantity of heat and light.  But that only works when there is a technological replacement for that environmental feature.  So, while the case study of the New York City water supply would suggest that clean land will save about 0.5 cents/acre/ca., some environmental features cannot be replaced.

{New York Water supply case: The US EPA ordered the City of New York to upgrade its water treatment plant to the tune of an extra $8 B, plus $300M per year.  The City chose instead to institute $2 B of stewardship programs in the upstream watershed, and provided the same water quality benefit.  That worked out to an up-front savings of $50,000 per acre, divided through 10M people, or about 0.5 cents per person per acre, not considering the operational savings.}

This introduces a concept that usually would have no place in a discussion of economic value. There are environmental features that cannot be replaced by current technology, are not avoidable or controllable, and are therefore not buyable or sellable.  Thus, the only value they could have is measured by the cost of their absence.  So, what is Gravity worth?  If Gravity ceased to operate tomorrow, there would be no life on the planet by the end of the day.  So arguably, the value of Gravity is infinite.  Rather than that, I would introduce the concept of ‘Sacred’ – any feature that is not replaceable, not avoidable/controllable, and/or not sellable, is Sacred, and cannot have a value that can be measured in something as vulgar as money.

 

For example, sunlight, by that definition, is Sacred. Even if the fraction of the Sunlight that goes to photosynthesis is considered, it is effectively Sacred, as there is no way to replace it.  If this is pared down further to the sunlight that is used to produce food, the economic value is so large (eg, all economic activity on the planet has the same value as all food production on the planet, since we all work for food) that it is effectively Sacred, even if it doesn’t precisely meet the definition (replaceable, just not at that scale).

Weather is Sacred – it moves energy, air, and water around the globe, in a way that cannot be replaced, controlled, or sold. It may be that HAARP attempts to make weather mundane, but that is just conjecture.

Wilderness is Sacred, even if the term of Wilderness is somewhat ill defined and subjective.

This list is quite abbreviated, but it is clear that one could find many environmental features that meet the concept of Sacred. This illustrates that there is a need for the concept, and that there is a weakness in any financial argument, because many ‘things’ have some very high intrinsic values that cannot be reflected in financial terms.  Another unit of measure is required.

So, I will introduce another concept. Natural Services are processes that reduce the amount of time required for communities to meet their needs, without an investment of time and/or resources on the part of the community. Thus a volcano adding ash to soils, and thus increasing crop productivity, is a natural service.  Weather, sunlight, tides, etc all are natural services.  Natural services renew renewable resources, assimilate wastes, and in many other ways allow people to live on the world in relative comfort, because we gain disproportionately to the effort required to utilize these services.

The value of the natural service is, at an absolute minimum, the replacement time cost for the community to either do without the natural service, or to substitute the natural service with an alternative. In many cases, the natural service will not be replaceable or avoidable and is therefore Sacred.  This does not invalidate this argument, rather it demonstrates that some things are not and should not be for sale.

Thus, the value of ‘Green’ is, at a minimum, the aggregate time cost of the incremental absence of the natural services associated with ‘Green’. Due to synergistic effects, this apparent value must be conservative, and possibly very much so.

To compare to monetary values, one would have to add the life-cycle time benefit of the ‘Green’, and produce the financial cost to purchase this much time in the community. So, if a particular ‘Green’ feature saved the community 20 minutes per day per person, the economic value of the feature is 20 minutes of labour per day per person, multiplied by the value of each minute of that labour and the population affected.  And this would be making the assumption that we understand the ecology sufficiently and the functioning of the community sufficiently to include all time costs accurately.

Understanding the value of ‘Green‘ is the first step in exploring Sustainable Technological Development.