Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLVI
Managed Verses Unmanaged Degrowth: Do We Truly Have a Choice?
Today’s brief contemplation is part of an ongoing conversation with others regarding the Degrowth movement and in response to one of my previous posts to the Peak Oil Facebook Group I am a member of.
I am not sharing the lengthier conversation (that can be found here) but rather my final (perhaps) comment regarding my view of the leanings of many that support the movement.
KH:
Steve Bull Yes, collapse is very much more likely than Degrowth (which by definition is planned). However LN has a very good point “Recommendation: get behind the idea, and figure out how to support it.” Steve, you are an excellent and prolific writer. You would be a wonderful asset to the Degrowth cause.
Me:
First, thank you for the compliment.
In principle, I am and have been a supporter of degrowth for a number of years, stating quite explicitly that humanity must degrow its existence; even arguing that ‘managed’ degrowth is what we should be attempting with all haste (in fact, that’s what I say in the first sentence of the article this conversation has prompted: “I wholeheartedly agree that some of the policies advocated by the Degrowth movement are our best option to help mitigate locally the consequences of the various symptoms of our ecological overshoot predicament.”). And I continue to maintain that stance.
That being said, I take issue with what appears to me to be the vast majority of supporters of ‘degrowth’ that continue to engage in significant magical thinking particularly as it pertains to industrial technology use and appeals to our sociopolitical systems to implement such a strategy/approach.
It seems quite clear to me that we not only need to be abandoning industrial technologies (virtually all of them) as widely and as quickly as possible but that our governing systems cannot and will not in any circumstances abandon the golden geese of perpetual growth and power/wealth structures that sustain their revenue streams (at least not for the privileged; they most certainly will for the masses). These ‘roadblocks’ to widely-implemented degrowth are, frankly, insurmountable and have never been overcome for any significant length of time in the entire pre/history of large, complex societies.
It is far more likely (some would argue inevitable) that ‘unmanaged degrowth’ (what some would term ‘collapse’) is our future given pre/historical precedents, biogeophysical limitations, the Maximum Power Principle, Laws of Thermodynamics (especially pertaining to entropy), and biological principles (especially ecological overshoot). Most of what I read from supporters of degrowth rail against those who raise these complex issues and deny/bargain with/rationalise away the harsh realities that confront and impact us and our ‘ideals/wishes’ for a ‘balanced’ existence.
The hope of degrowth occurring on a system-wide, global scale in the manner that most in the movement advocate for is a classic case of what Erik Michaels argues is ignoring the underlying predicament of ecological overshoot that has arisen because of human behaviour, our lack of agency, illusion of control, belief in technofixes, optimism bias, and the unsustainability of civilisation. To say little of the ‘energy/material blindness’ that tends to embody the ‘solutions’ posed by most degrowthers.
To raise these complex aspects of our predicament brings with it an interesting dynamic: ad hominem attacks and various other accusations. Apparently, I am a: fossil fuel-industry shill; tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist; climate change-denier; and/or, Malthusian ‘doomer’. Most recently, I am apparently part of the 1% conspiracy to maintain the power/wealth structures that sustain the ruling caste of society.
So, in essence, I am a degrowth advocate. But my support of the movement does not mean I believe it will be successful in addressing our overshoot predicament because, frankly, there is no ‘solution’ only marginal mitigation that might — for some small, local communities; if they’re lucky — ease the ‘collapse’ that has started. To believe otherwise seems to ignore/deny/rationalise away an overwhelming and significant amount of evidence. It’s a classic case of bargaining to avoid anxiety-provoking thoughts.
Yes, let’s degrow rapidly and significantly. Let’s keep it real, however, and not chase technologies that exacerbate our predicament, appeal to global ‘leaders’ that claim to be ‘representative’ of the masses but are not, and, perhaps most importantly, recognise that this will not ‘solve’ anything. It may, at best, mitigate and ease the collapse for a few. And, yes, I believe this might be possible so long as we don’t pursue maladaptive strategies that make a horrible situation worse — which is what many seem to be arguing for.
Just released: It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1
A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.
With a Foreword and Afterword by Michael Dowd, authors include: Max Wilbert; Tim Watkins; Mike Stasse; Dr. Bill Rees; Dr. Tim Morgan; Rob Mielcarski; Dr. Simon Michaux; Erik Michaels; Just Collapse’s Tristan Sykes & Dr. Kate Booth; Kevin Hester; Alice Friedemann; David Casey; and, Steve Bull.
The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.
Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.