Human Rights

and the

Ecological Imperative

James A. Swann

Update as of May 2008.

book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any

information or retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher.

ISBN # 0-9700864-0-7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To all the authors, journalists, scientists and statesmen I have read and taken the liberty to quote and to those who have also read and commented upon the manuscript;

To all the related but unrecognized films, documentaries and discussion I have seen, heard and cherished;

To all my patient friends and family with whom I have argued and discussed the subject;

To the secretaries at my architectural office in Chicago, Betty Fraunhoffer and Carol Drogosz, who suffered through my early drafts;

To my partner in architectural practice, Malcolm Weiskopf, whose lunchtime critiques and suggestions I have wisely absorbed;

To Timi Keene, my editor and challenger who, in spite of my irrational tendency to rewrite, stayed with me through the epilogue;

To Debra Chang, who mercifully stayed with me through the final changes and corrections;

In particular to my brother, Robert, lifetime friend and teacher, whose dedication to non-violence and pioneering work on land trusts and community-based currencies have been a lasting inspiration for me;

To Howard T. Odum to whom I owe the most. I first read a magazine article by him in the late sixties which proved so insightful that I requested the Graham Foundation in Chicago invite him to speak to my fellow architects. Little did I know at the time that Howard and his brother Eugene were the founders of the Science of Ecology.

He came to Chicago and we met. Subsequently I read ‘Environment, Power and Society’ published in 1971. All of which inspired me to spend thirty odd years, between my busy architectural practice, pondering and writing this book.

Howard called me in the spring of 2002 and suggested we exchange books. He and his wife had just finished ‘A Prosperous Way Down’. I was delighted but my poor efforts were still in need of many corrections. I responded, with apologies, and my unfinished manuscript: he with a signed copy of their book.

Howard died September 19, 2002 at the age of 78. I sent his wife, Elisabeth, my heart felt sympathy and much thanks for the education he gave me.

To Theresa McDonald who worked with me through the final three chapters which I felt necessary to add in conclusion.

And finally, to myself, who despite all rational considerations and recognition of homo sapiens propensity to self-destruct, did persevere in this thankless task against all odds that anybody would be reading or heeding my message.

Cover drawing of world map is from Buckminster Fuller’s icosahedrons projection.

PREFACE

It might seem highly presumptuous to some that an architect should brazenly venture deep into another specialist's territory. I suggest however, the specialist who today does not venture outside his/her specialty may be derelict. The narrow framework within which the specialist must function cannot be other than frustrating and demoralizing. Often the services performed prove an outright disservice when viewed in the larger framework of society. Take most architects' roles for example; we spend most of our professional lives crowding the maximum amount of real estate onto a given plot of subdivided, recorded, and denuded earth. We cram the maximum amount of building into a minimum budget and, like good dress designers, try to keep up with the current styles. We are programmed by developer payback periods and tax shelters, building and zoning codes, EPA regulations and historic preservation departments. If we work for the subsidized poor, we become minimalists constrained by government regulations and tight budgets, and our project sites are banished from genteel view. Sometimes we are propagandists for the corporate giants. We are their ad men and public relations people, their image builders. Here we are allowed free license, lavish budgets and prime sites. Here too, regulations are relaxed in an attempt to entice the giants. Our neighborhoods and cities are planned by lending institutions and politicians, themselves captives of an imperfect construct and ancient prejudices. We are all driven by forces seemingly beyond our control. Although we are often aware of the ineffectiveness and superficiality of our acts, we feel helpless to right them.

As a student I was misled to believe that architects could make a difference, could help change the world. Those were heady revolutionary days. Frank Lloyd Wright had created his Broadacre City, his usonian democracy at work and play. Corbusier had countered with his linear industrial, Radio Centric City with its skyscrapers in a park. Others, like Doxiodos, projected visions of a brave new world of planned regions linked with high speed, inter-urban transit networks and uncongested urban bliss. Mumford, with Stein, envisioned human scale garden towns with plenty of open space and recreation. They were all great and inspiring dreams for my generation. But I was young then. Looking back, it is clear that I and many of my peers were mesmerized by the virtuosity of our Lieben Meisters, but had little comprehension as to how their dreams might be realized or even if they should be.

Today it is clear that those dreams are still mostly in storage or only idealized through models. Except for a few prototypes cities exist as before: a motley mix of ostentatious corporate palaces, tawdry commercial establishments, crowded decaying slums and escapist suburban dormitories; these interspersed with a mixture of odorous factories, toxic waste dumps, littered parks, and the ubiquitous automobile with its unending trails of asphalt and monoxide. Architects and planners have withdrawn to their studios, to one liners and pallid pastiche, or to high tech fantasies in stainless steel and neon. There is a prevailing apathy. The big dreams are dead. And architects are not alone - educators, health care experts, social planners - their dreams too have come to naught.

Nor were the "real politic" plans of the Robert Moseses any better. They spoke only to the few - the power brokers of their day. Their dreams were narrow and shortsighted, devoid of meaning for most.

Those entities that survive in nature have done so by adapting to its immutable imperatives. This holds for humans and the artifacts that they create. To be effective and truly creative we must abandon the narrow confines of our professions. Nor should we accept the gospel from other specialists who, in their eagerness to succeed, develop their own protective jargon of authority. In this growing participatory society we are all going to have to try to understand what is happening and help right it.

But why the subject of human rights? Are not people the world over beginning to understand their rights and to demand them? What more is there to say on the subject? It is certainly true that throughout the world people are demanding their rights and their freedom, although too often the concepts are only vaguely understood and the responsibilities not clearly perceived. Nor, in my opinion, has the subject of rights been fully explored in the developed democracies. We are still resting on our two hundred year old laurels. Today's world and our knowledge of it require a renewed effort to expand and strengthen our philosophical foundations. In particular, because the idea of human rights is just now becoming a dominant one in the world, it is more important than ever to explore these inherited ideas to the fullest.

And what of responsibilities? While much is being said and demanded by way of rights, we tend to overlook responsibilities. The two, like Yin and Yang, are inseparable. Historically rights have been seen as each citizen's shield against the sometimes arbitrary and unjust exercise of power by the state. Today we are becoming acutely aware of a third factor - the fragile nature of our collective global community and, with this awareness our responsibility to protect it. Thus responsibilities loom larger than rights. In 1792 the French Revolutionaries proclaimed "A declaration of natural and imprescriptible rights of man." Today we must add a mandatory "responsibilities of man" to that declaration.

I do not intend to present an exhausting legal study of where we have been or where, it seems, we may be going. I do not pretend to have the academic background for such an undertaking. This I must leave to legal scholars and judges. My focus is on the necessity for equal and comprehensive justice. My purpose is to challenge some current rights' concepts, to introduce some others, and to attempt to put it all together into some kind of organic order. It is an attempt to see rights and responsibilities not from the specialist's point of view but from the generalists. Nor do I make any broad claims concerning my suggested corrective scenarios. They are meant to be guideposts, starting points for specialists to work over. In fact, many are variations of ideas that have been suggested and elaborated on by others at different times. Those I know and have studied, I give credit. There are surely others whom I do not know but have uttered similar thoughts. I believe in the rightness of the basic concepts as presented. This belief has sustained me as I struggled to translate it all into words. But even more to the point, it is my belief that if we can redefine men’s' and women’s' rights and their complimentary responsibilities, and if we can then translate these concepts into law, we will have created a philosophic foundation upon which we can hopefully build a better superstructure, one which will ensure greater participation by all and thereby foster new creative inputs. In this roundabout manner we may be able to create for our children and ourselves a more compatible world and thus indirectly, and among other things, evolve an enlightened architecture whose shape we can only guess at now.

On this brief note and with further apologies to some of the truly great individuals whose words of wisdom I have purloined, I will get on with the subject at hand, namely human rights and responsibilities.

March 26, 1970

Since this was written much has transpired to reinforce and expand my own thoughts. I have tried to keep pace with these events and evaluate them in light of this paper. Thus, this 1989 rewrite includes recent events that reinforce my earlier thoughts. I am today more than ever convinced of the rightness of these propositions. Growing worldwide industrialization, nuclear proliferation, the madness of "Star Wars," and the birth of bioengineering, to name only a few current events, lead me to feel the urgency of our situation and the need for a changed viewpoint. But I am encouraged by the most recent non-violent peoples' movements; the successful one in the Philippines and the tragically failed one in China.

March 3, 1989 - 91

It is now 1997 with only 6 more shopping daze to Christmas and some 27 years since I began this essay. Along the way I have added current illustrations and comments to clarify my thoughts. I have also tried to expand on some of my scenarios. These may also explain some seemingly disjointed sections of the essay. Life moves on at a steady pace and we easily forget about things that happened a mere 30 years back. Most, however, are still valid for purposes of this essay. All, in fact, help to reinforce it.

Finally, while at times I despair that what I am suggesting is naive or impractical, I am nevertheless reaffirmed by what I hear and see in the real world beyond current politics and beyond those who preach their own self-serving agenda. I also see a rising tide of awareness that may soon wash away much of what is now seemingly immovable. I like Lincoln's way of putting it:

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. As our case

is new, so we must think and act anew... we must disenthrall ourselves, and

then we shall save our country."

December 18, 1997

It is now 2001. Many events have frustrated the completion of this essay, but I have also discovered much to enrich it and thus hopefully clarify my purpose.

May 13, 2001

It is now 2008. I have included three additional chapters: Part VII Summary with hope, Part VIII The Gathering Storm, and Part IX Inertia or Change (Is there hope?). I am making some corrections and further clarifications. Fini.

CONTENTS

PART I – INTRODUCTION 1

GENERAL 1

MIND, MATTER & SURVIVAL 2

SURVIVAL MECHANISMS 4

DEFINITIONS 5

A BRIEF SYNOPSIS 10

PART II - TYPES OF RIGHTS 11

THE INDIVIDUAL - EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS 11

THE FAMILY - MUTUAL RIGHTS 13

ENVIRONMENTAL USE RIGHTS - EQUAL ACCESS 18

INFORMATION USE RIGHTS - EQUAL ACCESS 23

PART III - SECURING USE RIGHTS 31

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 31

SERVICES & DISSERVICES - BUSINESS & GOVERNMENT 36

A RESTORATION SCENARIO: A PARTNERSHIP WITH NATURE 43

THE DOWN SIDE 44

FOSSIL FUELS 45

FRESH WATER 48

SOME EXOTIC USE AREAS 51

OCEANS & SEAS 52

WILDLIFE 55

THE MEDIA - PROVIDING REAL SERVICES 57

MONEY MONOPOLY - GAINING EQUAL ACCESS 62

PART IV - RELATIONSHIP OF RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES 73

INFORMATION - SOCIAL INSURANCE 73

POPULATION, CONSUMPTION, USE RIGHTS & MUTUAL RIGHTS 76

PART V - INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES 80

GOVERNMENTS & WORLD TRADE 80

THE KILLING TRADE 89

PART VI - SECURING ALL RIGHTS - A STATE OF NATIONS 92

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY & HUMAN RIGHTS - U.S. & U.N 92

EVOLUTION OF U.S. GOVERNMENT 98

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 103

U.N. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 109

REVOLUTION, TERRORISM AND PROTEST 111

PART VII – SUMMARY- WITH HOPE 117

PART VIII - THE GATHERING STORM 122

REPORTS OF THE STORM 124

THE OZONE HOLE 128

DIMMING THE SUN 129

BIODIVERSITY 129

SEQUESTERING 131

POPULATION AND CONSUMPTION 132

PART IX – INERTIA OR CHANGE (Is there hope?) 137

A FEEDING FRENZY 138

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL 146

IS THERE ANOTHER PATH? 146

HOPE NO HOPE? 151

THE LATEST REPORT IS NOT GOOD 153

EPILOGUE 156

APPENDIX 157

REFERENCES 164