Micah Saul: This project is built on a hypoth­e­sis. There are moments in his­to­ry when the sta­tus quo fails. Political sys­tems prove insuf­fi­cient, reli­gious ideas unsat­is­fac­to­ry, social struc­tures intol­er­a­ble. These are moments of cri­sis.

Aengus Anderson: During some of these moments, great minds have entered into con­ver­sa­tion and torn apart inher­it­ed ideas, dethron­ing truths, com­bin­ing old thoughts, and cre­at­ing new ideas. They’ve shaped the norms of future gen­er­a­tions.

Saul: Every era has its issues, but do ours war­rant The Conversation? If they do, is it hap­pen­ing?

Anderson: We’ll be explor­ing these sorts of ques­tions through con­ver­sa­tions with a cross-section of American thinkers, peo­ple who are cri­tiquing some aspect of nor­mal­i­ty and offer­ing an alter­na­tive vision of the future. People who might be hav­ing The Conversation.

Saul: Like a real con­ver­sa­tion, this project is going to be sub­jec­tive. It will fre­quent­ly change direc­tions, con­nect unex­pect­ed ideas, and wan­der between the tan­gi­ble and the abstract. It will leave us with far more ques­tions than answers because after all, nobody has a monop­oly on dream­ing about the future.

Anderson: I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul. And you’re lis­ten­ing to The Conversation.


Micah Saul: Well, sir, it’s been a while.

Aengus Anderson: It has been a while. And in the inter­im, we’ve raised funds, got a new web site under con­struc­tion, cel­e­brat­ed thanks­giv­ing. I drove across the south. You drove across the coun­try. We’ve been busy.

Saul: Turns out we have.

Anderson: And and that busi­ness has some­what slowed down the pro­duc­tion. But the flip side is that I have taped a whole bunch of con­ver­sa­tions that I will be edit­ing once I final­ly slow down in Tucson, which is going to be in less than two weeks now.

Saul: That’s insane. It’s been…it’s been a long, crazy ride.

a It will have been over sev­en and a half months of trav­el, and I’ve record­ed so much stuff that work that we’re going to still be doing this into next April for sure. So, we’re going to hit the one year mark.

Saul: That’s awe­some. Well, I think it’s awe­some. Hopefully our lis­ten­ers do.

Anderson: I’d say if they’ve made it this far, they—

Saul: Deserve a medal.

Anderson: Yeah. We’ll be send­ing out gold stars to every­one who emails us and says they’re still alive out there. We just wan­na ping you. But we also want to thank every­one who’s donat­ed. I’m not doing the design, but I have a sense of what it’s going to look like. It’s going to be real­ly fun. So, thank you every­one for lis­ten­ing and chip­ping in.

So, let’s move into this mas­sive­ly over­due episode. This is Chuck Collins, great grand­son of Oscar Mayer, which is just a fun foot­note. That’s not real­ly why we’re talk­ing to him. But it is par­tial­ly why we’re talk­ing to him. Because it means that he was born into the one per­cent.

Saul: We’ve talked to a few peo­ple that are sort of hov­er­ing on the edges of the one per­cent, but this is the first time we’re firm­ly talk­ing to mon­ey. And, he’s also very inter­est­ing as a mem­ber of the one per­cent, because he’s all about lev­el­ing the pay­ing fiel— Because he’s all about lev­el­ing the play­ing field a bit between the one per­cent and the ninety-nine per­cent.

Anderson: I love the idea of slip­ping up and say­ing lev­el­ing the pay­ing field.”

Saul: Yeah, I…

Anderson: That does sort of get us into the ques­tion of tax­es, doesn’t it?

Saul: It does.

Anderson: So maybe he’s not into lev­el­ing the pay­ing field, he’s just into lev­el­ing the play­ing field. He wants a pro­gres­sive pay­ing field, as it were, where the upper class­es pay more mon­ey, where the inher­i­tance tax sticks around. And he’s orga­nized a net­work of multi-millionaires and bil­lion­aires to lob­by for what they call fair tax­a­tion.

Saul: That group is called United for a Fair Economy and Wealth for Common Good.

Anderson: And while we’re list­ing his cre­den­tials let’s also say that he directs the Institute for Policy Studies’ pro­gram on Inequality and the Common Good.

Saul: Noticing a com­mon trend here.

Anderson: You won’t be sur­prised if we spend a lot of time talk­ing about class in this con­ver­sa­tion. And ear­li­er in the series, we whined a lot that we weren’t hav­ing enough con­ver­sa­tions about it. Then we got Cameron and Priscilla. But this one’s very dif­fer­ent than Cameron and Priscilla. We won’t get into that until the end more, but we want to sort of put that idea out there for you as you lis­ten to the episode.


Chuck Collins: I’m Chuck Collins. I grew up in the Midwest, in Michigan. I was born into a kind of…the one per­cent fam­i­ly. Oscar Mayer, my great grandfather’s the meat Packer Oscar Mayer. So I grew up in a priv­i­leged sub­urb of Detroit, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. I went to the same high school with Mitt Romney. He’s a lit­tle old­er than me, but I knew who he was. But I also, hav­ing grown up in the Detroit area, was very aware of sort of the polar­iza­tion of race and class. And to go to a base­ball game at Tiger Stadium meant real­ly cross­ing the race and class divide, as wide as it gets in America.

So, I think that lit­tle seed was plant­ed in me, the con­cerns about dis­par­i­ty of income and wealth and oppor­tu­ni­ty. And I moved to New England when I was very young. I left home when I was sev­en­teen and did a vari­ety of odd jobs, includ­ing was a orga­niz­er try­ing to keep the Seabrook Nuclear Power plant from being built.

But then I worked on issues around tax fair­ness here in Massachusetts, and helped start an orga­ni­za­tion called United for a Fair Economy, that’s still around. And the pur­pose of that orga­ni­za­tion was to draw atten­tion to the prob­lems of income and wealth dis­par­i­ty. And did a lot of research and more orga­niz­ing and book writ­ing and kind of pop­u­lar edu­ca­tion on those issues of why the gap mat­ters, and what we can do about it.

Since 2006, I’ve been at the Institute for Policy Studies and over­see three pieces of work. One is work on these issues of inequal­i­ty in class. And here in this build­ing, there’s a lit­tle sub­pro­ject called class action, a web­site called clas​sism​.org which does work on these issues of class and inequal­i­ty.

Another part of my work is some­thing that I will call orga­niz­ing the one per­cent. So, there’s a net­work called Wealth for the Common Good that has hun­dreds of multi-millionaires and bil­lion­aires it it. And we orga­nize an effort to pre­serve the estate tax, the inher­i­tance tax, and lob­by for pro­gres­sive tax­es. But it’s sort of like engag­ing high net-worth indi­vid­u­als. So again, sort of bridg­ing class.

But the third area is this tran­si­tion to a new econ­o­my, and that’s where the work of David Korten and I can inter­sect is. All these things are inter­con­nect­ed. How do we pre­pare our­selves for an econ­o­my that’s based on both a whole dif­fer­ent ener­gy sit­u­a­tion as well as hope­ful­ly a soci­ety that’s more equi­table, that doesn’t have these kind of grotesque dis­par­i­ties of income and wealth?

Aengus Anderson: I want to book­mark that thought, because that’s going to be a huge thing. Let’s start with the class divide. So, if you grew up thinking—maybe not think­ing of yourself—just being part of the one per­cent, I’m curi­ous about sort of the move to think about these larg­er issues as prob­lems. Why are they prob­lems?

Collins: Well, I think even then I saw that there was some­thing fun­da­men­tal­ly unfair about it. I didn’t sort of inter­nal­ize those divides as, Oh, this is a reflec­tion of deserved­ness. There are some peo­ple who work hard­er and smarter, and there’s some peo­ple who for var­i­ous rea­sons don’t have access to the same lev­els of income and wealth.”

So, I kin­da ear­ly on fig­ured out that it was sort of a rigged game, if you will. That the rules of the econ­o­my… The rules broad­ly defined as, you know, tax pol­i­cy, trade pol­i­cy. The rules were sort of tilt­ed in my favor. And at the same time, there was a whole sort of mythol­o­gy or a sto­ry about wealth and deserved­ness that I had been told.

So, I was sort of ques­tion­ing that. But what I’ve come to appre­ci­ate is that these wealth dis­par­i­ties, which real­ly start­ed in the late 70s to kind of pick up steam and real­ly have tak­en off, you know…1980…really over the last ten years. The gap has grown. The share of income going to the rich­est one per­cent, the share of wealth held by the one per­cent, the ero­sion of kind of a lad­der of oppor­tu­ni­ty.

So, these inequal­i­ties basi­cal­ly trash every­thing we care about. Too much inequal­i­ty encour­ages a mon­ey sys­tem that basi­cal­ly just destroys the Earth. Too much inequal­i­ty under­mines pub­lic health. Too much con­cen­trat­ed wealth is con­cen­trat­ed pow­er, so that under­mines the func­tion­ing of a demo­c­ra­t­ic sys­tem. Three days ago, the International Monetary Fund put out a report say­ing it’s bad for the econ­o­my and growth. Too much income inequal­i­ty under­cuts the healthy func­tion­ing of an econ­o­my.

Sports, cul­ture, mobil­i­ty, keep going down the list…art. And at the core that is when a soci­ety pulls apart too much, there is a break­down in sol­i­dar­i­ty, that sense that what hap­pens to you actu­al­ly does mat­ter to me. When peo­ple are too far apart, they’re not in a rela­tion­ship any­more. They’re not in the same com­mu­ni­ty. They’re oper­at­ing in par­al­lel uni­vers­es. And there­fore they start to cre­ate mytholo­gies and sto­ries and fear of each oth­er.

You know, the one per­cent fears the bot­tom twen­ty per­cent. The bot­tom twen­ty per­cent thinks that all the peo­ple in the one per­cent are demon­ic, you know. And so you start to not have authen­tic con­ver­sa­tion any­more. You’re just kind of… So, that dis­con­nect leads to a break­down of all kinds of things.

Anderson: That’s what I was going to ask, where that goes.

Collins: Yeah, basi­cal­ly it means that… So, pub­lic health. If your health is inter­twined with my health, if we’re in the same com­mu­ni­ty, in the same food sys­tem, in the same, health cen­ters, in the same buildings…then you have a stake in my health, and I have a stake in your health.

So inequal­i­ty mat­ters. If we keep on the track that we’re going, if we keep polar­iz­ing, then our expe­ri­ence is more sim­i­lar to like, Brazil. There is a very small wealthy elite, they live behind walls, they dri­ve their bul­let­proof Mercedes Benz from their enclave res­i­den­tial area to their enclave shop­ping area and go out to lunch. The chil­dren have body­guards when they go to school. You know, it’s not a pret­ty pic­ture. And then you have this huge major­i­ty of peo­ple who live in the fave­las and live in des­per­a­tion.

Anderson: And that’s a grim pic­ture. And yet it’s also a pic­ture that makes me think of well, so much of his­to­ry. That’s a world that has exist­ed, that’s a world that exists now, that’s a world that we can eas­i­ly go back to. Was the mid­dle class some sort of aber­ra­tion? And when I say aber­ra­tion I’m think­ing like a three hun­dred year, four hun­dred year, aber­ra­tion but…

Collins: More like a sixty-year aber­ra­tion.

Anderson: [crosstalk] In the US, cer­tain­ly.

Collins: In the United States, yeah.

Anderson: Yeah, that kind of mid-20th cen­tu­ry swell.

Collins: Yeah.

Anderson: Is that some­thing that we can keep, or are there big­ger struc­tur­al forces that are going to pull this apart? Is the game sort of fixed by the peo­ple in con­trol?

Collins: Well, it’s not at all fixed. Let’s just look in the United States’ lit­tle bub­ble. We can come back to glob­al­ly, but what the exper­i­ment that we under­took real­ly after the first Gilded Age— So, if you think, you know, a hun­dred years ago we were liv­ing in a peri­od of grotesque inequal­i­ty, and we had World War I, and we had a Depression, and we had World War II. But along the way, we did a num­ber of things that sort of ensured that after World War II, we were not going to have these grotesque inequal­i­ties.

We may have inequal­i­ty. There is some­thing about free mar­ket economies and even, you know, with strong robust gov­ern­ments you can have a more Scandinavian-style soci­ety where you have floor the peo­ple can’t fall through. You don’t have peo­ple who are home­less. You have no peo­ple dying for lack of access to health­care. There are some basic human rights. But with­in that, you can have fair­ly wealthy peo­ple. They’re going to be pay­ing tax­es that help ensure that there’s a healthy soci­ety over­all.

We don’t have to have these extreme inequal­i­ties. We can have mod­est inequal­i­ties and have a pret­ty good soci­ety. That’s total­ly attain­able. And the exper­i­ment after World War II was that we were mak­ing progress, real­ly over the thir­ty years, toward a more equal soci­ety. And one of the things I try to argue about the cur­rent moment is that these extreme polar­iza­tions of inequal­i­ty actu­al­ly are bad for every­body, includ­ing the rich. That they actu­al­ly back­fire.

Anderson: Does that work? I mean, when you’re hav­ing that con­ver­sa­tion with peo­ple in the one per­cent? Obviously I think of, you know, Buffet’s op-ed. It fell like this bomb­shell for so many peo­ple, where he was say­ing tax. Is that com­mon?

Collins: You know, it’s actu­al­ly more com­mon than we think. So, I have had a lot of con­ver­sa­tion that I think have been good, and there are some that are like a brick wall. You know, if I were going to kin­da sim­plis­ti­cal­ly divide the uni­verse, or— You know, my expe­ri­ence of the one per­cent is there’s a seg­ment of the one per­cent, a very large seg­ment, that actu­al­ly under­stand that too much inequality’s bad. That it’s not good to live in a soci­ety where the rules are rigged, whether it’s in your favor or against you.

And there are peo­ple in the one per­cent who get up every morn­ing and try to cre­ate greater equal­i­ty and fair­ness, and they’re real­ly engaged in children’s issues, health­care, the envi­ron­ment, both phil­an­throp­i­cal­ly as well as sort of putting their whole body and soul into social change work.

Then there’s this seg­ment of the one per­cent, I call them the rule rig­gers, the game fix­ers. They use their con­sid­er­able wealth and pow­er to change the rules of the econ­o­my and soci­ety to ben­e­fit them­selves in a very nar­row way. And…you know, the Koch Brothers, or you know peo­ple who…they own an oil com­pa­ny and they use their pow­er to block changes in ener­gy pol­i­cy. And it’s very short term. They use their wealth and pow­er strate­gi­cal­ly to advance their inter­ests.

Most of them actu­al­ly believe that what they’re advo­cat­ing for is in the larg­er com­mon good. They would say, Oh, this is actu­al­ly for the com­mon good.” There’s a few peo­ple who would just say the rest of the world be damned” and I don’t give a shit about poor peo­ple” and you know…

Anderson: There’s some­thing per­verse­ly respectable about that lev­el of self-awareness, isn’t there?

Collins: Yeah. That’s right.

Anderson: So, in those cas­es you can just say, This per­son embraces their greed.” But in most cas­es you have peo­ple who think they’re doing good, but are still stonewalling a lot of these mea­sures—

Collins: Yeah, I mean they’re doing good because they have that Ayn Rand view of the world, which is, There’s the prime movers, of which I am one. And I’m the engine of the train, and then every­one else is just along for the ride. The best thing gov­ern­ment can do is either dereg­u­late or hand sub­si­dies over to me because I’m the engine of the train.” So they’ve cre­at­ed a self mythol­o­gy around their own worth and deserved­ness that is quite dis­pro­por­tion­ate to their actu­al con­tri­bu­tion.

But it’s val­i­dat­ed, you know. The busi­ness press goes out and, you know… Larry Ellison, what bril­liant thing did you do this week that has made the world bet­ter?” or what­ev­er. Well, let me tell you…”

So you have a cer­tain rein­force­ment for that. But there’s a sto­ry I would tell you, which is when I worked on try­ing to pre­serve the inher­i­tance tax, we had a group of a cou­ple thou­sand multi-millionaires and bil­lion­aires say­ing, Keep the inher­i­tance tax. Tax wealth. It’s a good thing. It’s a fair thing.”

Well, that was kind of an unusu­al group, right? Wealthy peo­ple say­ing, Tax us.” And Bill Gates’ dad. I wrote a book with Bill Gates’ dad on why we should keep the estate tax, Wealth and our Commonwealth, and I orga­nized Warren Buffett and some of those peo­ple to be very out­spo­ken. And it was very very effec­tive. Part of it was because they sort of popped the myth of what I would call the great man the­o­ry of wealth cre­ation.” There’s a few prime movers out there rid­ing the rails that do all the wealth cre­ation.

And when you talk to those folks, they will tell you a sto­ry about wealth cre­ation which is, Look, I live in a soci­ety. Yes, I work hard, and I’m cre­ative, and I get up every morn­ing and I do my part. But I’m oper­at­ing in a larg­er sys­tem. And I’m sow­ing seeds and ground that’s already fer­tile for wealth cre­ation, and that fer­til­i­ty comes from soci­etal invest­ments in oth­er people’s work, and the com­ments.” And these peo­ple see the web.

Anderson: And that term has been expressed in dif­fer­ent ways in this project. But I won­der how you con­vince some­one who maybe even sees it intel­lec­tu­al­ly but doesn’t kind of feel being part of that web. Because that seems like such an inte­gral part to the argu­ment that you’re mak­ing to the one per­cent—

Collins: It is.

Anderson: You’ve got to real­ly feel that this will some­how come back to you. Yow do you feel the web?

Collins: I like this guy Charles Eisenstein you may have come across who wrote Sacred Economics. So we have these two big dis­con­nects, right. We have this dis­con­nect with nature, which is we are part of the nature sys­tem, We’re not sort of just sit­ting next to it.

So one of the doors into under­stand­ing the com­mons is just to sort of…“Oh, yeah. I’m part of the web here. The eco­log­i­cal web.” Then there’s the social web. We don’t see that we are part of a social web, that we’re inter­de­pen­dent. There’s all this fas­ci­nat­ing kin­da new brain sci­ence that shows that actu­al­ly we are hard­wired to be deeply inter­con­nect­ed. We are hard­wired to be mutu­al. That our brains light up when we’re engaged with oth­er humans in a com­mon endeav­or. It’s as fab­u­lous as choco­late and sex. It’s like…[makes explo­sion noise] That is our nature, actu­al­ly. When we are tak­en out of that com­mu­ni­ty web, we actu­al­ly hurt, and our brain reg­is­ters it as if we were just hit phys­i­cal­ly.

So again, talk­ing about the peo­ple in the one per­cent who I’ve talked to who say, Look I earned all this wealth myself. I didn’t get any help along the way. And I real­ly don’t have any oblig­a­tion back to the soci­ety.” When I’ve kin­da dug in there and inter­viewed peo­ple, what I found is that there’s usu­al­ly… First, there’s a lot of truth in their sto­ry, which is they prob­a­bly made a huge and hero­ic sac­ri­fice to get to where they were. First gen­er­a­tion immi­grant who comes to this coun­try with noth­ing and real­ly makes huge sac­ri­fices to their health, by over­work­ing, or being exposed to some dan­ger­ous sit­u­a­tion. They make emo­tion­al sac­ri­fice. They have to shut out parts of their own life and human­ness to make it. They miss their children’s child­hood. They miss their children’s sport­ing event or their school play, or they… They are mak­ing a hero­ic sac­ri­fice, often for the next gen­er­a­tion.

And those folks know how impor­tant an indi­vid­ual is. They are like Ayn Rand’s hero­ic indi­vid­ual. And we don’t get any­where by den­i­grat­ing that. We cer­tain­ly don’t get any­where by not hon­or­ing that. But what I think that does is it cre­ates a wound. And it’s a wound that basi­cal­ly then makes it impos­si­ble to hear, or at least feel, expe­ri­ence, on a very gut lev­el the gifts of the com­mons. Or cer­tain­ly the soci­ety has a claim on me.”

You know, I’ve got­ten right to that point where it’s like, Well, yes you made those hero­ic sac­ri­fices. And yes, those should be hon­ored and reward­ed and cel­e­brat­ed. But if you were mak­ing those hero­ic sac­ri­fices in a dif­fer­ent soil, there are oth­er places in the world where you could toil very hard with noth­ing to show. And in fact, many peo­ple do toil very hard with very lit­tle to show. Isn’t there some­thing about the soci­ety that made this pos­si­ble? You’re not an island. You could not have accom­plished this with­out the web of oth­er peo­ple.”

Anderson: And that’s not even get­ting into the fact that race or sex or all of these oth­er things also play into that, too.

Collins: That’s right. Some peo­ple got on the wealth-building train, and oth­er peo­ple were kept barred at the sta­tion from get­ting on the train. There’s all kinds of… But it’s an attrac­tive world­view for some­body who’s at the top.

Anderson: You prob­a­bly have a bet­ter shot than most of real­ly chang­ing the ideas of these peo­ple. Do you think we have to get to a point where things go wrong enough where they real­ly feel it? Or is it some­thing we can sort of rea­son our way to?

Collins: That’s a good ques­tion. I mean, I think first of all we shouldn’t be sit­ting around wait­ing for the one per­cent to recov­er their empa­thy. We just have to go out and try to orga­nize a world where as much of the com­mons is pro­tect­ed for everyone’s use. So we have to resist efforts to pri­va­tize water. Or resist efforts to destroy the Earth for short-term gain.

That said, I’m par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ed in how do we enlist allies in the one per­cent. So, they’re already our allies. They need to be engaged and includ­ed in part of the social move­ments. And there’s more allies there to be won over. I do think that there will be bumps along the road, shock points, cat­a­stro­phes, what­ev­er, that will reveal that it is not real­ly in the self-interest of the one per­cent to allow things to dete­ri­o­rate fur­ther. Certainly in terms of the cli­mate, extreme weath­er, you know… The rich have a lot of coastal prop­er­ty, for instance. So they’re going to be affect­ed by sea lev­el rise dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly.

In oth­er ways, they’re not going to have to live with the down­side of the col­laps­ing food sys­tems, or the spread of dis­ease in the same way. They’ll fortress them­selves off. But here’s one of the pieces that I didn’t men­tion, which is I actu­al­ly think for peo­ple in the one per­cent it’s bad for our spir­its and our souls and our psy­cho­log­i­cal health to be dis­con­nect­ed, to be walled off. And so there­fore, it’s also in the self-interest of the one per­cent to rejoin human­i­ty.

Much of class and iso­la­tion and pulling away is this sort of illu­sion that some­how we can be apart from the suf­fer­ing that is in our midst. And that’s a myth. The social iso­la­tion that many peo­ple in the one per­cent expe­ri­ence is a wound.

Anderson: That’s get­ting into some­thing that I real­ly want­ed to talk about, which is sources of val­ue. In our con­ver­sa­tion thus far, we’ve talked a lot about… If you are, say, in the one per­cent, hear how things real­ly tan­gi­bly come back and affect you… This will make me sick, this will make me unhap­py.” But I think there’s some­thing… In our soci­ety we’re talk­ing about some big trends that sort of push us towards alien­ation.

Collins: Yeah.

Anderson: Now, do we think that get­ting into a bet­ter income brack­et gets us away from that? And what is sort of the val­ue sys­tem beneath that belief? Is it just the sim­ple we val­ue mate­r­i­al goods, we val­ue the pow­er that mon­ey gives us to do things as indi­vid­u­als” be it to trav­el, be it to edu­cate our­selves? And is there a dif­fer­ent type of val­ue that we’re total­ly over­look­ing here?

Collins: Well, yeah. I think there’s a lot going on there. I think that there is a mate­r­i­al basis to hap­pi­ness, obvi­ous­ly.

Anderson: So, that’s of the kind of the floor we were talk­ing ear­li­er.

Collins: Yeah, there’s a point at which aspir­ing and attain­ing some mod­icum of secu­ri­ty, eco­nom­ic well-being, and com­mu­ni­ty well-being is nec­es­sary. I think we focus more on the indi­vid­ual eco­nom­ic well-being mod­el. That also required a huge amount of con­sump­tion of eco­log­i­cal resources. Misses the com­mu­ni­ty well-being, the tribe, our sense that actu­al­ly we are sup­posed to be part of extend­ed units that are trib­al, that are kin­ship, that are com­mu­ni­ty. That our chil­dren actu­al­ly don’t do that well when they’re just in these lit­tle units. That they need to be brought into cir­cles of aun­ties and uncles and neigh­bors who are also tak­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty for their well-being. We’ve sort of left out a whole piece of what it means to sort of cre­ate well-being and hap­pi­ness.

But then there’s sort of like, cre­at­ing dis­con­nec­tion from suf­fer­ing, which has gone way over­board. So, now we’re cre­at­ing lit­tle islands of our nuclear fam­i­lies that are try­ing to buffer our­selves from suf­fer­ing. Our whole cul­ture in a sense is like… But the one per­cent, it’s like…hyper-dis­con­nect­ed. It’s hyper-removed. But suf­fer­ing actu­al­ly, in a tribe or kin­ship net­work, there are always peo­ple who are being born, and there are always peo­ple dying, and there are peo­ple who are sick, and there are peo­ple who are healthy. And if our chil­dren don’t grow up in a kin­ship net­work, then we don’t under­stand that that is the nature of human life. We just kind of cre­ate com­fort as if that were in itself the goal of life. Physical com­fort.

And labor. Disconnecting from the basic work that we need to do. So, chil­dren learn­ing how to grow food, and take care of ani­mals, and hav­ing mean­ing­ful jobs from a very young age. You know, so many young peo­ple have like…into their twen­ties have not made any mean­ing­ful con­tri­bu­tion to the tribe or the kin­ship net­work. They’re just there to con­sume. And they go off to col­lege, and col­lege is like a big cruise ship, you know, an all-you-can-eat cruise ship expe­ri­ence.

This ener­gy, at this stage of their life, could be deployed in a hun­dred ways that would be both mean­ing­ful to them and huge­ly help­ful to the soci­ety. Yeah, I think I think if we said look, there’s a pri­ma­ry val­ue here in human inter­con­nec­tion, face to face phys­i­cal. We are ani­mals. We’re fun­da­men­tal­ly ani­mals that are social ani­mals. That raise our young in herds, you know—

Anderson: That is intrigu­ing. I was think­ing of Lawrence Torcello who’s a philoso­pher I talked to. And a big part of our con­ver­sa­tion was edu­ca­tion. You know, how do you even begin to intro­duce the ideas of think­ing [of] our­selves as a unit. I mean, we can talk about empa­thy and brain sci­ence and see­ing sys­tems that are big enough where you can under­stand how things cir­cle back to you. But of course, there’s an edu­ca­tion­al foun­da­tion beneath that.

Collins: I mean, I would take off from that and say there’s edu­ca­tion for you know, what­ev­er, cit­i­zen­ship, plu­ral­ism… You know, the sort of clas­sic lib­er­al ide­al or the John Locke. And then there’s sort of like, edu­ca­tion for plan­e­tary inter­con­nec­tion. How did we school our­selves to real­ly think that we’re so dis­con­nect­ed as a species from the web of life and the plan­et and our own ani­mal natures, etc? You know, like, this gen­er­a­tion of chil­dren who have no con­cept of where their food comes from, or how the Earth works.

My daughter…recovering city kid, you know. She’s try­ing to learn about where her food comes from. Has a very close friend, very smart, who just said to her one day, So, apple­sauce comes from apples?” Realize wow, there’s some dis­con­nect there, you know. So, I think that that’s true. There are some ways in which our edu­ca­tion sys­tem very ear­ly on rein­forces cer­tain dis­con­nects, prob­a­bly more implic­it­ly rather than explic­it­ly.

I think we are in a deep shift. We are head­ing to an eco­log­i­cal and eco­nom­ic tran­si­tion. The next ten years is not going to be like the last sev­en­ty years. There’s going to be a bunch of shock points that will sort of bring into relief the fail­ures of the old sys­tem, the fail­ures of the mon­ey sys­tem, the fail­ures of our sort of ways of think­ing. Things could go bad­ly. We could go toward that extreme inequal­i­ty fortress men­tal­i­ty, the com­pet­i­tive self­ish nature, fear-based response, which is hard­wired into us. So you get a Blade Runner, you know, Mad Max kinda…wherever your dystopi­an…

Anderson: Movie of choice.

Collins: Yeah. Your apoco-porn sce­nario. Or, we kin­da retool our­selves, both our con­cept of our self and soci­ety and the world an nature, and tap back into some insights that have been—you know, it’s not like they went away or anything—that helps build more durable, resilient econ­o­my, com­mu­ni­ties, rela­tion­ship to the Earth. We’ve already—

Anderson: So this is an impor­tant moment.

Collins: Totally, total­ly, yeah. I mean, you and I could be having—you could sched­ule this con­ver­sa­tion in a month and some­thing will hap­pen in the next month that kind of a 9/11, Hurricane Katrina sort of extreme weath­er event, or a 2008 eco­nom­ic melt­down, where our whole way of think­ing, con­tex­tu­al­iz­ing, where we are would shift. You know, I’m not going to put a time­frame on it, but soon

Anderson: That’s pos­si­ble.

Collins: Oh, it’s not— It’s going to ha— I mean, it’s more than pos­si­ble.

Anderson: I’d actu­al­ly like to flesh this out a lit­tle more. Because this is some­thing where some peo­ple in this project cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly deny that there is any­thing… I mean, we are just, in the longer term, on a great upward pro­gres­sive climb to some­where.

Collins: Right.

Anderson: But it seems like in our con­ver­sa­tion there’s a sense that no, this isn’t like a sub­tle deal. The rosy future isn’t com­ing, nec­es­sar­i­ly. This is a moment, and also I mean that ties into the very idea of the project, you know. Is this amount where we need to be hav­ing the Conversation, if it even mat­ters at all?

Collins: Yeah, no. I think we’re in an inter­est— I mean, you know, every­body prob­a­bly thinks the moment they’re liv­ing in is inter­est­ing but. But I think sim­ply just ener­gy, fos­sil fuel, cli­mate change… You know, we’ve altered the cli­mate one degree Celsius. We’re on the track to alter it anoth­er degree. We know that when that hap­pens, there’ll be cer­tain feed­back loops. It’s not a lin­ear process, it’s a dynam­ic process that will have impacts on food sys­tems and what parts of the world get too much water and what parts don’t have enough water, and acid­i­fi­ca­tion of the ocean. So there’s sort of an eco­log­i­cal pic­ture that I think, as I read the sci­ence says we’re head­ing pell-mell into alter­ing our ecol­o­gy in a way that will then alter our day-to-day liv­ing.

It’ll show up eco­nom­i­cal­ly, prob­a­bly, for most peo­ple. It’ll be your food is going to cost more. You’re going to have to retro­fit your house because your roof blew off. We’re going to have to tax our­selves more and invest in infra­struc­ture, because the pumps in the sub­way sys­tem are blah blah blah, you know.

Anderson: Does that lead to some big, I mean, post-apocalyptic— We were just talk­ing about the movies. Does that lead to a real col­lapse, or does that lead to just sort of a…oh, we adapt and we kin­da move along?

Collins: I’m with this guy John Michael Greer. I think [record­ing skips] going to have a col­lapse like, boom to neo­prim­i­tivism or what­ev­er. I think that what hap­pens is there’s a sort of shift. And then there’s an adap­tion. And then there’s anoth­er shift. And then adap­tion. But it’s ulti­mate­ly slow motion. I don’t think of it as col­lapse, I think it’s just a tran­si­tion.

We lived through a peri­od of the extrac­tion of cheap fos­sil fuels, and we built a whole soci­ety around that. And we built up a pop­u­la­tion based on a fos­sil fuel indus­tri­al food sys­tem. And depend­ing on how much nat­ur­al gas we think is there and da da da da da, we will kind of have this sort of bumpy descent from—it’ll be a long descent—from that sort of glo­ried fos­sil fuel nir­vana that we had cir­ca 1971 or some­thing like that, you know.

But we’ll cer­tain­ly be alter­ing our set­tle­ment pat­terns, and liv­ing space. And region­al­iza­tion will return as a source of secu­ri­ty. We’ll think of indi­vid­ual and com­mu­ni­ty resilience in dif­fer­ent ways. And that will draw out our com­mu­ni­tar­i­an impuls­es or it’ll draw our our fear-based, self­ish impuls­es.

Anderson: So that’s real­ly what the Conversation is about. It’s sort of prepar­ing us to go in one of those direc­tions or anoth­er?

Collins: Yeah, I think it’s a toss-up. I think it’s about prepa­ra­tion for a tran­si­tion to a new econ­o­my. It doesn’t have to be scary and apoc­a­lyp­tic. I like think there are some oppor­tu­ni­ties here to trans­form our com­mu­ni­ties and our­selves to the next phase of the next chap­ter.

A lot of the changes we need to make are being blocked by fear­ful or old ways of think­ing, or attach­ment to oudat­ed mod­els or just sim­ply denial, you know. The longer we stay in denial, the more unfor­tu­nate­ly upheaval-like that tran­si­tion will be. We could’ve thir­ty years ago made soci­etal choic­es to go down a dif­fer­ent path in terms of ener­gy sys­tems. We didn’t. Oh, well. So, now we’re going to have to live with the con­se­quences of poor plan­ning.

But, peo­ple have to come togeth­er, you know, to fig­ure this out. I’m not like, inher­ent­ly opti­mistic about that. I mean, I think I read a whole bunch about the Dust Bowl. The take­away was a lot of peo­ple lived through the Dust Bowl and still didn’t change their world­view about what was going on, whether it was, this was an act of God pun­ish­ing them, or they did not believe it was a human-created dis­as­ter. We could be ten years from now with our coast­lines look­ing quite dif­fer­ent, and you’re still going to have cli­mate deniers. The project real­ly isn’t about con­vinc­ing every­body.

Anderson: What keeps you— We’ve talked about so much dark stuff. What keeps you from despair?

Collins: I do think the tran­si­tion move­ment… People who sort of have an analy­sis around both the eco­log­i­cal and eco­nom­ic changes ahead and are kind of cre­at­ing, in the shell of the cur­rent econ­o­my, the new econ­o­my. So, the peo­ple who are sit­ting around say­ing what will the busi­ness­es of the future be? What will our ener­gy sys­tems be? How can we cre­ate more resilient food sys­tems? How do we pre­pare cities, adapt them, to the future? All that sort of prac­ti­cal con­struc­tive pro­gram. Some of that can be very un-ideological. It’s just pre­pared­ness. It’s just good old-fashioned American pre­pared­ness. People who are orga­niz­ing these resilient cir­cles, you know, which are like sup­port groups for… It’s like AA for fos­sil fuel addicts and peo­ple who are— Who see that the econ­o­my is not going to come back to some glo­ried day in the past. That’s a piece of the work.

And then I think there’s some­thing that’s focused on how do we shift con­scious­ness. And that will I think be an inter­ac­tion between exter­nal events and the trip points, if you will, the flash points, the eco­nom­ic and eco­log­i­cal wake-up moments. There will be an oppor­tu­ni­ty to have some of these con­ver­sa­tions and new ways of think­ing, and hope­ful­ly they’ll break through, you know.

So, orga­niz­ing the seg­ment of the one per­cent… I’m all about that. Haven’t giv­en up. Consciousness-shifting. Offering up new mod­els for peo­ple to orga­nize to meet their basic needs. And resilience, orga­niz­ing, tran­si­tion prepa­ra­tion work among those who are read­ing the signs of the times and want to roll up their sleeves and get to work, and under­stand that whether it’s Obama or Romney, noth­ing fun­da­men­tal is going to shift on that front, and that you have to oper­ate where you have room to move. And where you have agency.

I think peo­ple are wait­ing to be invit­ed to a grander endeav­or, a more mean­ing­ful endeav­or. We just haven’t sched­uled the par­ty yet. Yeah, and it’s a beau­ti­ful day. It’s an absolute­ly beau­ti­ful day. I try to notice in each and every moment the gifts that are there, which are huge. Huge. For me, it’s not real­ly about hope. It’s notic­ing what’s already here.


Aengus Anderson: So there we go. It’s a beau­ti­ful day.

Micah Saul: I got­ta admit, it was kind of humor­ous lis­ten­ing to that, and stand­ing in the rain wait­ing for the bus. It’s like, this is not a beau­ti­ful day. Especially as the crazy home­less man across the street was scream­ing at the top of his lungs that we weren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly going to die at his hands, but we’d feel pain.

Anderson: You just…you ruin every­thing.

Saul: I…it’s my soci­etal role.

Anderson: I’m jeal­ous of that. So where do we want to launch into this? There’s a lot of stuff in here. We kind of set things up to be a com­par­i­son between Cameron and Priscilla and Chuck. So, do you want to go there first?

Saul: I think that’s a great place to jump in. The first thing I thought when I was lis­ten­ing to this was, Priscilla talks in her con­ver­sa­tion with you about how she’s not real­ly inter­est­ed in work­ing with the one per­cent. She cri­tiques the mod­ern Left for being run by the same peo­ple that run the Right, which is the peo­ple with mon­ey. She com­plains about when she first became politi­cized, the orga­niz­ers she was work­ing with being, para­phrase, a bunch of trusta­far­i­ans. So of course, because of that, I see an imme­di­ate response from Grim to Collins, which is that while he may have the right ideas he’s still com­ing from mon­ey and the peo­ple he’s work­ing with are too invest­ed in the sys­tems to actu­al­ly seek mean­ing­ful change.

Anderson: Right. What does rel­a­tive equal­i­ty mean? Chuck doesn’t give us specifics, and I don’t think any­one could when you’re talk­ing about some­thing like striv­ing towards greater rel­a­tive equal­i­ty. It’s a more abstract goal, and I won­der if that would be sub­stan­tial enough to get Priscilla inter­est­ed in this con­ver­sa­tion with the one per­cent. I mean, Chuck him­self says, Look, we can’t sit around and wait for the one per­cent to do this. There are a lot of peo­ple there who are already our allies. We should work with them. But we should also work from the ground up.” So I think Chuck is inter­est­ed in changes on both fronts, work­ing from the top down and work­ing from the bot­tom up.

Saul: The oth­er thing that I think Chuck does real­ly well is he human­izes the one per­cent. And he does a good job I think of dis­pelling the notion that the one per­cent is a uni­fied bloc that is just out to screw all of us over.

Anderson: Right, and he does that not only through his descrip­tions of talk­ing to them, but also through who he is.

Saul: Exactly. These are peo­ple.

Anderson: Yeah.

Saul: Many of them care.

Anderson: You know, there’s anoth­er inter­est­ing con­nec­tion with Priscilla, and also with Cameron. When we talked about the envi­ron­ment, they were…con­cerned about it but it wasn’t a very high pri­or­i­ty. In both cas­es, they felt it can sup­port a lot more. It seemed like they were seek­ing a broad­en­ing of the mid­dle class, bring­ing a lot of peo­ple into the mid­dle class…maybe encour­ag­ing peo­ple to not con­sume as much, maybe not hav­ing quite the lev­el of phys­i­cal afflu­ence spread wide. But a real sense that you know what, the envi­ron­ment can han­dle that load.

Saul: Right. That we’re nowhere near any sort of resource lim­its at this point.

Anderson: Right. Which is obvi­ous­ly very dif­fer­ent than some of our more environmentally-focused thinkers have sug­gest­ed. But they’ve talked per­haps less about class. And so here’s Chuck, and he sort of brings these issues togeth­er in a new way, right.

Saul: Absolutely. The jump he made from the social and eco­nom­ic com­mons to the envi­ron­men­tal com­mons… I think that was huge, because he says that we can’t have…the social com­mons doesn’t exist with­out the envi­ron­men­tal com­mons, with­out the nat­ur­al com­mons.

Anderson: I’d nev­er heard any­thing like that before. And it’s an inter­est­ing argu­ment. When you think of your­self as embed­ded in this larg­er envi­ron­men­tal or nat­ur­al or what­ev­er you want to call it, eco­log­i­cal sys­tem… When you think of that, you see very direct­ly how things cir­cle back to you. The poi­son you dump in the well, well you drink that, you know. And then, kind of under­stand­ing that phys­i­cal­ly, you move into the social realm.

Saul: Right.

Anderson: Oh. If I am suc­cess­ful in a way that leaves these peo­ple impov­er­ished, that will cir­cle back to me in a lot of dif­fer­ent ways that make our soci­ety tense or frag­ile or just less enjoy­able.

Saul: And that neg­a­tive­ly affects me.

Anderson: Yes.

Saul: There’s some­thing inter­est­ing there, because it…it per­son­al­izes the threat. In some ways that’s a very effec­tive argu­ment, espe­cial­ly when deal­ing with peo­ple with a lot more to lose. I think that’s a good tran­si­tion point to some­thing else he talks about, which is being a part of soci­ety, as well. How impor­tant it is to rec­og­nize the soci­ety you’re embed­ded in, and real­ly reach out and try and recon­nect with them.

Anderson: You know, we’ve just been talk­ing about a lot of the mate­r­i­al ways in which it helps you. At the same time, he would also argue that well, there are a lot of psy­cho­log­i­cal ben­e­fits to that social con­nec­tion.

Saul: I think that’s where you start to see some of the def­i­n­i­tion of the good that comes up in this con­ver­sa­tion. He seems to be real­ly focused on the ben­e­fits of con­nect­ed­ness with soci­ety, col­lab­o­ra­tion with your neigh­bor. He talks about, you know, col­lab­o­ra­tion light­ing up your brain just as much as sex and choco­late. But he’s also very much focused on respect for the indi­vid­ual. So there’s a cool bal­ance there between the ben­e­fits you get men­tal­ly and social­ly from work­ing with oth­er peo­ple, and the ben­e­fits you get men­tal­ly and social­ly for work­ing for your­self.

Anderson: There’s this lit­tle con­nec­tion back to Colin Camerer here, the pow­er of the fMRI and what can you see. Because there’s a big assump­tion in that that we are learn­ing things about the mind that actu­al­ly give a sort of a sci­en­tif­ic basis for an under­stand­ing of human nature, and to some extent an under­stand­ing of what’s good.

Saul: We see through­out the project con­nec­tions between the good and tech­nol­o­gy.

Anderson: Yeah.

Saul: But this one’s very dif­fer­ent. This is not the idea that tech­no­log­i­cal progress is good. This is the idea that tech­no­log­i­cal progress allows us to see the good, and allows us to maybe fig­ure out what the good is. And the good is some­thing that exists with­in us, or between us.

Anderson: And it’s inter­est­ing, too, because when I was talk­ing to Tim Cannon, he used a lot of sim­i­lar neu­ropsy­chol­o­gy and sci­ence as a micro­scope look­ing at the brain, and got a very dif­fer­ent idea of good out of that, which went far to the oth­er direc­tion towards us as indi­vid­u­al­is­tic, as fueled by a strong sur­vival dri­ve that was more com­pet­i­tive than col­lab­o­ra­tive.

Saul: Right.

Anderson: I think Chuck acknowl­edges that as well when we talk about, if we have some sort of eco­nom­ic cri­sis, are we going to pull togeth­er? Are we going to break apart? Is it going to be the col­lab­o­ra­tive? Is it going to be the com­pet­i­tive that wins?

Saul: Right. So, maybe we’ll just have to leave that to our lis­ten­ers to think about for them­selves. And if they have any thoughts, hey we still have a web site. We still have com­ments on it. Send us a mes­sage.

Anderson: That was Chuck Collins, inter­viewed at the Institute for Policy Studies in Boston, Massachusetts on October 23rd, 2012.

Saul: This is The Conversation. You can find us on Twitter at @aengusanderson and on the web at find​the​con​ver​sa​tion​.com

Anderson: So thanks for lis­ten­ing. I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul.

Further Reference

This interview at the Conversation web site, with project notes, comments, and taxonomic organization specific to The Conversation.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.