As I ponder the logistics of what it will mean to live sustainably, I have to wonder if a centralized or more decentralized system is the way to make it happen. Centralized economies (what we erroneously called Communism) failed miserably – even China had to resort to a capitalistic system to survive, although it is still a totalitarian system, which is what Communism collapses into being. Centralized systems are where the hierarchy try to make all the decisions for all levels of the system. If you think about viewing the planet from 50,000 feet you certainly get a big picture of what is below you but the lack of detail means you do not see the nuances that the people actually on the ground have to deal with every day. On the other hand, while a decentralized system might know what works best for a specific small location would not see the consequences of small-scale decisions that can negatively affect the larger system.
Looking at the financial systems, the growth of large international banks and central banks and the loss of local banks has become the norm. Think about the chaos that the financial crash of 2008 wreaked on the planet’s institutions and how merging of the investment banks and savings banks has been problematic. The push to one world bank, one world currency, one world trading system, one world communication network, one world government, one world army-police system, one world language, one homogenized world culture, seems ever more likely as we accept centralization of everything in the supposed name of efficiency. But efficient for whom? The consumer economic culture we find ourselves trapped within is really one of enslavement. Think about it. The consumer system gives wealth to a select elite few while the rest of us are hypnotized to keep buying stuff, often for no reason that to have more stuff – a source of monetary happiness only – we literally live to acquire more stuff to keep the consumer system moving. We have come to value only material things yet, all our desires, hopes and longings are for the non-material aspects of life. Fear comes from the past and anxiety derives from fear of the future. It’s is amazing how people are so afraid of losing their stuff and by default their money. Our lives have become quantified. Our time, efforts, abilities, and have been reduced to monetary spreadsheets. If we expect our future to be positive, we believe that it must involve money, and with the global population still growing, never question the myth for a growing economy.
The consumer economy is of endless growth, which by any rational assessment cannot keep occurring on a finite planet. Another option I have given before (see earlier post The Exponential Function) is where I ponder on a “Steady State economy” – one that does not grow or shrink but thrives within the ecosystem limits (ecological economics). Yet, even this exists on the threshold of sustainability. Another option, and one that is rarely mentioned by proponents of sustainability is that of Degrowth. This iswhere we design an economy that actually shrinks to a point where we thrive far below the ecosystem limits giving more acceptance to natural systems and were materialism is of little consequence. This is not a reduction of comfort but using only what we need and living in harmony with nature and each other. Ideas of degrowth terrify economists who only see this as recessions, but let’s explore this a little more.
In 2011, an ecological economist, Nicolas Kosoy (McGill University) organized the first international conference on Degrowth. He and many fellow Degrowth proponents argue that “only a contraction of the world’s developed economies can help reduce dependence on fossil fuel and other environmental resources, shrink income disparities in developed nations while building wealth in emerging ones.”
“Degrowthists distinguish their ideas from sustainable development and steady state economic theory — both of which strive for equilibrium between consumption and the Earth’s carrying capacity but which at times suggest growth may be desirable. Degrowth theory is more radical: a downscaling of production and consumption as a means of preserving resources while re-engineering a more equitable society.” Degrowth.com
One of the biggest problems with regular economists trying to think about Degrowth is their fixation on GDP (the value of a country’s goods and services in a given period). The erroneous belief that higher GDP correlates with a higher quality of life (QOL) is a huge stumbling block to rational discussions. GDP growth only correlates with QOL when countries are very poor and diminishes (even becomes negative QOL) as living standards increase. This is in many ways like the concept of ‘simpler living’ where the focus is on QOL and not being fixated on SOL, which is where we are presently in the developed world.
“The U.S. has the largest economy in the world, yet among wealthy nations it ranks last or near the bottom in 30 indicators of well-being… Growth may serve the interests of the corporate world, but it does not address the deeper problems that really matter.” James Speth
What will be required is a voluntary redistribution of work and wealth. No, this is not the dreaded socialism that Americans fear so much. Many studies show that people in high stress/high paying professions and careers would happily work fewer hours for less total take-home pay. Instead of one person working a ridiculous 90 hours for $180,000, we could have three people working 30 hours for $60,000. SOL might decrease slightly, but QOL would increase tremendously. Economist, Peter Victor, York University, Toronto says, “This would essentially be a return to pre-globalized economy where local merchants and service professionals satisfy local consumer demand” “A lasting transition to a post-growth economy requires grassroots conviction and, perhaps, self-sacrifice, which might prove a tough sell in a society where consumer spending is considered an act of patriotism.” Economist William Rees (created the ecological footprint analysis of human impact on the Earth’s ecosystems) recognizes the biggest challenges are psychological in that it is mindset and worldview that will start the change. Rees thinks, “Americans will demand substantive changes in economic and social policy when they recognize that the grand promise of growth is a false one.”
So how does this play out for how society will be governed – more central or more localized? To Be Continued………
0 Comments