From production to preservation: The evolution of capital
Capital: “Is it as good as it gets?” or “Does it (even) get to be good?”
Capital is what drives the most part of the globe as of the beginning of the 21st century. Being capital what most people yearn for in their lives, the consequent market competition allows a wide variety of products to reach most households. Highly capitalized companies are able to invest millions in research and development to enhance technology and then the quality of life of the population. It is due to the purpose of capital that we do not need to know how to slaughter a cow to eat beef at the time we want. So, is capital as good as it gets?
To address that question, we have to take a deeper look at capital, starting by its definition. Capital is defined as all goods that are accumulated to produce other goods [1]. This means that human beings are able to multiply their possessions simply because they already own a bit of them. This is indeed an extraordinary skill unique to Homo sapiens, however, there is nothing magical in this phenomenon. As we all know from the law of mass conservation, nothing can be created out of thin air, so what capital does is to catalyze the transformation of other resources into more capital. Such resources can be roughly divided into two kinds, natural and human, both of which are well known to be mistreated by many organizations worldwide. Having introduced the dark side of the capital, the reader must be reconsidering the question if capital is as good as it gets and rephrasing it to “does it even get to be good?”.
One could argue, then, that capital does more harm than good, and that the world should completely ban capitalism in order to keep natural resources available in good conditions for the next generations and to achieve general welfare. However, the drawbacks of capitalism are still existent because of the reluctance to change some traditional practices. When international trade was still not made in large scale, there were few lines of research on the environmental impacts caused by economic activities and little concern on the finite characteristic of most natural resources. Also, society was more strictly segregated into classes and access to education was limited so that in many cases the treatment to employees was not adequate. Nowadays, even though several lines of research point out environmental issues caused by industry and agriculture, and many laws have been created to address human ethical issues, it seems that, still, many businesses try to overlook these facts in order to increase their capital.
The point here is that capitalism must struggle to escape from the inertia attributed by above traditional practices and convert into a sustainable and welfare-centered system in order to prosper throughout the next centuries. This struggle is comparable to the living beings’ struggle for existence mentioned by Charles Darwin in his masterpiece “On the Origin of Species” [2]. We can say so since, like living creatures, capitalism is highly dependent on the environment (i.e. natural resources), and works due to the synergy of each person involved in the production process (i.e. human resources) the same way that a multicellular organism has specialized organs for each physiological function. Therefore, capitalism ought to naturally evolve to cope with the environmental changes and to ensure that its human resources are maintained in good health amid those changes.
The evolution of capital: capital for preservation
So far, the process of capital accumulation has poorly regarded the Earth’s available natural resources, the pollution of air and water and global warming. A 2018 study by Cox et al. suggests that, if CO2 concentration in the atmosphere were instantly doubled (which, at the current production rhythm, can happen still during this century), the global temperature would likely increase by 2.8 °C [3]. That would have significant impacts on the world fauna and flora, as well as on the portions of land close to the shores, that would likely go underwater, displacing a significant portion of the world population. Since the current approach of capital relies on producing by using natural and human resources, if we keep on at the same pace, the system will collapse, leading to a global crisis.
Because of that, the evolution of capital is urgent, and such evolution will be based by changing the focus from capital for production to capital for preservation. I mean preservation not in the sense that production shall be completely banned, but in the sense that all of the production activities must be done under the tenets of preservation of natural resources and energy. To do that, obviously the extraction of natural resources must be reduced, however, another process must overwhelmingly take place instead: the reuse and recycling of existing materials and the investment in renewable energy sources.
The evolution of capital, though, shall not happen by pure initiative and benevolence of its holders. Given the actual market conditions and politicians who disbelieve in the existence of global warming, there is still a lot of room for purely production-centered capital. Thus, the change to capital for preservation must be triggered by those who are already committed to contributing to the world’s knowledge: us, academics. We need to propose unbiased, scientifically backed plans to stimulate companies to take the preservative approach on capital. Of course, that can be done by developing new technologies to increase the efficiency of energy and to reduce or recycle the natural resources, but, if there are still antiquate technologies that are cheaper than the high-tech ones, those will be preferred by the capitalists. So, in order to guarantee that such new technologies will be adopted, we will need a hand from the authorities.
Technology as capital vs. Technology as a tool to capitalize
Having said that technology is a key element for changing the current purpose of capital, one may think that technology should be used as capital itself. This idea is not new; in fact, lots of big organizations with research and development teams have made a lot of discoveries and keep them as trade secrets. Those are used for the production of goods and can even be negotiated with other businesses, which fits perfectly in the definition of capital. To give the scope of how much research is done in a not open fashion, a 2013 research by Hampton et al. analyzed 100 papers on environmental biology funded by USA’s National Science Foundation and verified that only 28% of them shared all of their produced data [4]. This is on the wrong track, and hurts one of the most essential scientific ethical principles, as described by Duke and Porter [5].
As a result, the way we are treating technology as capital is not much different to the way we treat human resources and natural resources as capital; then it is not the most appropriate approach for capital for preservation. Using technology as a tool to capitalize, though, is an alternative that can lead us to capital for preservation. All of the acquired knowledge should be publicly shared so that individuals and companies make good use of it for their production and trade processes. This would ensure that the most efficient and ecologically friendly technologies are equally available to everyone, thus diminishing the impacts caused to the environment and contributing to social equality.
A big concern that may be raised with this system of shared technology is that people will be less motivated to research, once their novelties would not be converted into capital. To address this issue, I propose that the developers of technology are highly awarded by governmental authorities so that they get the recognition by the population. Furthermore, since technology will be a tool to capitalize, freedom should be given to individuals and companies in the sense that they are able to develop strategies on how to use that tool without the obligation to share them. As a result, technology would still continue to be developed by individuals in search of academic degrees and awards. Also, companies would carry on their research and development operations in order to improve their marketing campaigns and advertising strategies, as suggested by Lacoma [6]. Patents, as long as they represent a specific application of one or several kinds of technology, should be respected to incentive creativity and capitalization.
The definition of new guidelines to deal with the new concept of technology as a tool to capitalize will, then, be the first step until we make preservation the main purpose of capital. Such guidelines must be done by the national governments and intergovernmental organizations, who must develop an internationally accessible and free of charge digital library containing all of the information related to technology, as well as ensure the quality and authenticity of the publications and that no technology is developed and not disclosed to the public.
Other ideas for capital for preservation
After we have standardized the purpose of technology, there is still a lot left to be done by society in order to consolidate capital for preservation. Obviously, the incentive to the development of new technologies by the government will ultimately contribute to the debut of cutting edge technologies that will change the way we deal with natural resources, especially those related to renewable energy sources and in the field of bioengineering. On the other hand, there are some practices not directly related to technology development that can be reshaped to maximize preservation.
One of such practices, that can be implemented and regulated by the governments, is the establishment of minimum quotas to oblige individuals and companies to invest their capital in environmentally and socially non-impactful production. These quotas can include production from reused or recycled materials or materials whose extraction does not impact the nature and ensures the quality of life of local communities. The percentage of capital correspondent to the quota can be defined considering the current development of technology, and must increase as newer technologies are introduced until a 100% impact-free production process is possible by everyone in the society. This may seem utopic, but data has shown that, in developed countries, the percentage of sustainable, responsible and impact investing (SRI) has been constantly increasing. A report by the US SIF foundation showed that SRI assets in the USA increased by 38% in 2018 with respect to 2016, representing one-fourth of the total assets [7]. The challenge is, then, to make this share of investment the rule for all businesses and to ensure that quotas are enforced by all governments.
The role of governments, companies, and technology is evident in achieving capital for preservation, however, we cannot forget about actions that can be taken by the members of the capital-driven society in their daily lives. For example, individuals should strengthen the local economy by supporting small businesses. According to a 2010 study of Revell et al., 91% of the surveyed small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK were practicing recycling and 85% were taking measures to increase energy efficiency [8]. In other words, small businesses are already prone to invest capital for preservation, so that, even though the aforementioned quota system is not yet implemented, individuals can take immediate action to promote the new purpose of capital by preferring such businesses. Also, by shopping local, you diminish the carbon footprint and contribute to the welfare of the local population, then contributing to the social aspect of capital for preservation.
Conclusions and final remarks
Capital is not as good as it gets. Its current purpose focuses on production, which consumes natural resources, and researchers are pointing out terrible consequences to our world if we keep our current social system. The only way to revert those consequences while preserving the benefits of capitalism is by realizing the evolution from capital for production to capital for preservation. The main agent for this tool will be technology, that must become universally available to ensure the best business practices. Governments must surveil all businesses so that they invest a minimum percentage of their capital in a sustainable fashion, and individuals can contribute by supporting eco-friendly small businesses.
With the current globalization and education reaching a bigger share of the world population every year, now the masses have better weapons to fight for a fairer and more sustainable world than ever before. It is everyone’s job to reshape capital so that, one day, preservation is not an alternative anymore, but the rule.
References:
[1] Merriam Webster Dictionary. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capital (Access on Jan 23rd, 2019).
[2] Darwin C. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859.
[3] Cox C, Huntingford C and Williamson M. Emergency constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability. Nature, 553, 2018, pp. 319–322.
[4] Hampton S, Strasser C, Tewksburry J, Gram W, Budden A, Batcheller A, Duke C and Porter J. Big data and the future of ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(3), 2012, pp. 156–162.
[5] Duke C and Porter J. The Ethics of Data Sharing and Reuse in Biology. BioScience, 63(6), 2013, pp. 483–489.
[6] Lacoma T. The Advantages of Research & Development Business Strategies. Available at: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-research-development-business-strategies-21246.html (Access on Jan 23rd, 2019).
[7] US SIF Foundation. Sustainable investing assets reach $12 trillion as reported by the US SIF Foundation’s biennial Report on US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends. Available at: https://www.ussif.org/files/US%20SIF%20Trends%20Report%202018%20Release.pdf (Access on Jan 23rd, 2019).
[8] Revell A, Stokes D and Chen H. Small Businesses and the Environment: Turning Over a New Leaf? Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 2010, pp. 273–288.
