Our Ecological Order

Within my book, “Cosmopoly,” the foundation of Cooperativism is that we fundamentally exist within a biological existence. We share our biosphere and natural environment with all that are the result of the physical existence of life and the foundation upon which everything else begins.  Therefore, the way that we human beings treat our biosphere will determine how we define it, which is directly linked to how we treat each other as well.

Our traditional way of defining things according to ourselves makes them all different form us. By defining our biosphere as being different from us, we have separated it from us as well. This has resulted in determining ourselves the same way that we think about the natural world.

The result historically has been that many people defined the biosphere as they did each other, which was always as though it were a separate entity from them and, therefore, ripe for exploitation. Therefore, only when we change our relationship with each other and see ourselves cooperatively will we also see the biosphere and our relationship with it differently than we do now.

If we are to see ourselves as a single human entity, then we need to see our bio-sphere cooperatively as our partner and the one from whom we obtain our natural existence and, therefore, the one to whom we owe our primary allegiance, because it can exist without us but we can not exist without it. When the biosphere is seen as the source of all life and we an extension of it, then we will also come to realize that it was never naturally an extension of us politically but instead we where an extension of it naturally.

When we come to see ourselves as an extension of the biosphere, we will also come to see that our political borders were never natural and only politically self-serving to those that controlled those borders, which resulted in controlling the personal capabilities of the people within them. Life’s natural resources must be seen as intended for all of us to enjoy and not just the few that politically or economically dominate them for their own purposes by politically trying to limit the access of the people and their capabilities to the political limits imposed upon them.

Entrusted Natural and Private Property

One of the tenants of Cooperativism is that the earth belongs to all the things on it and must be shared by all. Natural property can only be used but never owned. Instead of owning property of the natural environment, the people and their institutions would instead hold any property of the natural environment entrust. This entrusted property could be bought and sold like any other commodity.

Cooperativism is ecologically based, which means that it sees all private property as being ecological property that has been leased to the public for private utilization and must provide a positive result for society and not adversely affect the natural environment in order to achieve it.

Within Cooperativism private land property, because it would exist as natural territory, would be seen to be natural property in the long run which would essentially make it a part of the natural resources state trust and ecological state, and be under its ultimate stewardship. Therefore, private property, while privately owned would be seen to be ultimately an extension of the natural world of which all natural resources would in the end be a part of.

All entrusted property would be given an expiration date when the entrustment would have to be reissued. Entrusted property could have stipulations placed upon it that would specify its use. The property entrusted to a civil or personal trust would be the entrusted resources that would be made available to the members of the trust for exploitation and development.

Instead of Sovereignty Holding Territory Entrust

Within my forthcoming book “Cosmopoly” my system of entrusted government called Cooperativism would be based on the entrusted territory and resources that it’s civil, political, and state entrustments would have access to. Unlike the nation-state, which is based permanently on its own sovereign territory, the territory of an entrusted resources state and its institutions would only hold them entrust for the term of their entrustment.

A global ecological state would be a parallel state that would consist of the many natural resources state trusts of all of the many entrusted resources states that would be using its natural resources. The territory of every entrusted resources state would merge with one- another forming their own separate and global ecological state.

This would permit the natural resources state trusts of all of the entrusted resources states to not only support their own entrusted resources state, but also be members of an ecological-state that would be formed between them.

As the cooperative government process would increase and more nation states would be replaced with entrusted resources states, so would the amount of territory entrusted to the “planetary” ecological-state.

The ecological-state would represent all of the territory and natural resources of our planet. This would result in the gradual global entrustment of all of the earth’s territory into the global ecological-state making it the common property of us all.

Politically Empowering the Natural Environment

If we are going to effectively save our planet from the excesses of human over-exploitation and destruction than we are going to have to preserve the natural environment by giving it a statehood of its own capable of defending its own interests, free from the political domination of society. To effectively represent the rights of the natural environment it must be made a political entity that can represent its own interests. If our natural environment is to survive its own social users it needs to be made a separate political entity and autonomous from the human political entities that inhabit it.

The only way we can emancipate the natural environment is to empower it politically, which is precisely what the entrusted resources state does. It would give the natural environment its own political state within which it could protect and defend its own interests.  Granting our natural environment equal rights would ultimately mean the protection of all of the species on our planet, which in the process would insure our own long-term human survival as well.

As a separate political entity the natural environment could then defend itself politically from any abuses inflicted upon it by its human inhabitants.  By empowering the natural environment politically, we give it the ability to protect itself from any abusive human behavior while still providing the natural resource foundation for the entrusted resources state. This empowering of the natural environment would avert a global ecological catastrophe that if allowed to continue will negatively affect generations of human beings as well as the other species we share our planet with.

Emancipating our natural environment from human domination would allow it, as an ecological state, to be able to protect itself from our misuse, which would allow it to evolve in a healthy and natural way that benefits all of us. This would politically empower our natural environment with life, liberty and justice from our own social institutions. Then the natural environment will be able to adequately present its own concerns to the human communities of the world that depend on it for their natural resources.

An Ecological State

By issuing the natural environment with equal rights, we would be emancipating it from human domination and misuse.   Emancipating the biosphere would create an ecological state. The biosphere of the ecological state would also become a member of the natural resources state trust that would be holding it entrust for the entrusted resources state. In a world organized along entrusted resources state lines, their combined natural resources trusts would form a common ecological state among themselves.

The ecological state would act as the custodian of the combined natural resources that it would hold entrust. It would provide the natural foundation upon which the various political and social institutions of society would build upon. It would consist of the natural resources trusts of the many social and political institutions that would be holding them entrust.

Giving the natural environment its own state system would make it an ecological state that would be capable of representing its own interests. All natural resources would be a part of the ecological state that would represent them collectively. It would defend the natural environment from the abuses heaped upon them by the social institutions that want to use them.

It would have the ability to negotiate the use of its natural resources with the social trusts that wish to use them. This would provide the natural environment with a state of on its own that would allow it to protect itself. This would then allow the ecological state to act in it’s own behalf, beyond the dictates of the various social and political institutions that its natural resources would be entrusted to.

Everything within its natural state of existence would be considered a member of the ecological state. Therefore, each person with every other natural thing within a natural state of existence would also be considered a natural resource of the ecological state. Then we would all be protected from those institutions that would wish to do us harm by having membership within the ecological state. This would allow all of nature’s natural development to take place within a state of nature beyond the dictates of human interests.