Generative vs. Extractive Systems
This article talks about generative vs. extractive economics, but the concept goes farther.
Generative systems make as much or more as they use up. Extractive systems only take out, they don't make more. Generative systems tend to work better and are more sustainable. Some things, you can make a lot more of safely, like composting waste to make topsoil. Other things, you want to keep in balance, because too much causes trouble -- like deer eating every green thing in sight if there aren't enough predators. Extractive systems always end in some kind of collapse if they don't quit taking before they hit the hard limits. This makes them generally inadvisable. Add people, and they also start fights including many wars.
So in the long term, generative systems can be sustainable provided they don't outgrow the carrying capacity. Extractive systems are not sustainable, although sometimes a crash can be avoided by switching to a steady state or growth dynamic.
Some examples ...
Generative economics: small local businesses, hour exchanges, gift economies, microloans, fair trade, cooperatives, Heifer International, etc. These approaches turn investments into burgeoning growth that enriches everyone involved. They don't prey on anyone.
Extractive economics: chainstores, global megacorps, fossil fuel mining, wage slavery, etc. Those in power suck resources out of their victims, often doing a lot of damage that locals are stuck with but doesn't affect those who caused the problem. When it's just money, eventually it collapses naturally and some other economy will rise from the ashes. But do it to natural resources and you wind up with very permanent problems like beheaded mountain ranges.
Generative politics: healthy democracy, egalitarianism, participatory decision-making, etc. Everyone is involved in making choices so they share in good or bad results. This tends to produce good leaders because they learn by doing, and better ideas get passed around more.
Extractive politics: colonialism, most monarchies, oppression in general. Those in power feed on those without it. Colonialism is the most glaring example, where invaders move in, kill or enslave people, and take whatever they want giving little or nothing in return. Not only is this horrible in the moment, it leaves problems that go on for centuries.
Generative agriculture -- food forests, polycultures, permaculture, biodynamics, some organic farms, many traditional practices, etc. These approaches frequently focus on building good soil to produce harvests. Manure and compost add complex nutrients. Everything inedible gets recycled if at all possible. So these systems often put more in than the harvests take out, improving the system over time. It's most spectacular with food forests, which can go from barren ground to a smorgasbord in just a few years.
Extractive agriculture -- conventional agriculture, monocropping, slash-and-burn, etc. It takes and takes by harvesting crops. It doesn't generate more resources in the farm itself. It puts in only a few limited things to replenish what's taken out, the key nutrients for plant growth. So vitamins and trace elements can diminish over time.
Either humans relearn to give more than take, as our ancestors did, or the species is going to crash spectacularly.
Generative systems make as much or more as they use up. Extractive systems only take out, they don't make more. Generative systems tend to work better and are more sustainable. Some things, you can make a lot more of safely, like composting waste to make topsoil. Other things, you want to keep in balance, because too much causes trouble -- like deer eating every green thing in sight if there aren't enough predators. Extractive systems always end in some kind of collapse if they don't quit taking before they hit the hard limits. This makes them generally inadvisable. Add people, and they also start fights including many wars.
So in the long term, generative systems can be sustainable provided they don't outgrow the carrying capacity. Extractive systems are not sustainable, although sometimes a crash can be avoided by switching to a steady state or growth dynamic.
Some examples ...
Generative economics: small local businesses, hour exchanges, gift economies, microloans, fair trade, cooperatives, Heifer International, etc. These approaches turn investments into burgeoning growth that enriches everyone involved. They don't prey on anyone.
Extractive economics: chainstores, global megacorps, fossil fuel mining, wage slavery, etc. Those in power suck resources out of their victims, often doing a lot of damage that locals are stuck with but doesn't affect those who caused the problem. When it's just money, eventually it collapses naturally and some other economy will rise from the ashes. But do it to natural resources and you wind up with very permanent problems like beheaded mountain ranges.
Generative politics: healthy democracy, egalitarianism, participatory decision-making, etc. Everyone is involved in making choices so they share in good or bad results. This tends to produce good leaders because they learn by doing, and better ideas get passed around more.
Extractive politics: colonialism, most monarchies, oppression in general. Those in power feed on those without it. Colonialism is the most glaring example, where invaders move in, kill or enslave people, and take whatever they want giving little or nothing in return. Not only is this horrible in the moment, it leaves problems that go on for centuries.
Generative agriculture -- food forests, polycultures, permaculture, biodynamics, some organic farms, many traditional practices, etc. These approaches frequently focus on building good soil to produce harvests. Manure and compost add complex nutrients. Everything inedible gets recycled if at all possible. So these systems often put more in than the harvests take out, improving the system over time. It's most spectacular with food forests, which can go from barren ground to a smorgasbord in just a few years.
Extractive agriculture -- conventional agriculture, monocropping, slash-and-burn, etc. It takes and takes by harvesting crops. It doesn't generate more resources in the farm itself. It puts in only a few limited things to replenish what's taken out, the key nutrients for plant growth. So vitamins and trace elements can diminish over time.
Either humans relearn to give more than take, as our ancestors did, or the species is going to crash spectacularly.