Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLVII
Degrowth: A Philosophy Worth Sharing (But Understand, We’re In a Predicament Without ‘Solutions’ and Time Is Not On Our Side)
The following Contemplation is a response to a comment that has been prompted by conversation within the Degrowth Facebook Group I am a member of and regarding my last Contemplation that focused upon my personal observations about the tendency of many (not all, of course) that are viewing the ‘degrowth movement’ as a ‘solution’ to our various crises; crises that are the result of millennia of human expansion/exploitation and have been greatly sped up and magnified by our leveraging of a one-time cache of dense and easily-accessed, -storable, and -transportable energy (i.e., fossil fuels).
Here is my final comment to the group’s administrator within that dialogue, followed by my expanded thinking:
Yes, spreading the message is important and worthwhile; and I applaud and thank you for your efforts. That you are attempting to bring more into the fold of degrowing our impact upon the planet is commendable; and, very much so.
I, for one, appreciate the conversation that has taken place for it forces me to reflect upon and clarify, perhaps even revise, my thinking and beliefs on the issues raised. We are all in this together and the negative impacts are already being experienced by the majority of our species and certainly the other ones on our planet who have no voice in our deliberations and bear the brunt of our misguided behaviours.
I am putting together a longer response/commentary to post as my next Contemplation that will hopefully help to clarify my thinking on the issues that have been raised in response to this post. It was meant to share an observation as perceived through my eyes; that is all.
Let me begin by restating what I have attempted to make clear on numerous occasions and since I began writing about the issues that I do just over three years ago: I believe that the degrowth movement’s core philosophy of attempting a ‘managed’ contraction of the human experiment, particularly as it pertains to our industrial economy and the pursuit of economic growth, is an ideal worth pursuing. Without a cessation of the monster that is economic growth (but also population growth), we simply proceed ever further into ecological overshoot hastening the inevitable ‘correction’ and making the ‘rebalancing’ more devastating in its impact. It’s focus upon relocalising economies and moving communities towards self-sufficiency are particularly important and worthwhile in my opinion — and I have argued for these time and time again.
This being said, I have noted a not insignificant number of commenters, even popular ‘degrowth’ advocates, who make arguments that seem quite problematic, even contradictory, to the core philosophy. They appear to me to be attempts to deny and/or bargain with the notion that we are facing a predicament that has no ‘solutions’. I realise many people do not accept this premise, but I am one that does.
Perhaps the most obvious ‘bargainers’ are those who argue in favour of complex industrial technologies to address the predicament of overshoot and/or its many symptom predicaments (see Erik Michael’s work for more on this). It seems clear to me (and, yes, this is my personal observation/opinion) that degrowing our industries (all of them, not just fossil fuels) is one of the most important keys to slowing the runaway train we are all riding upon. Attempts to sustain technologies that ultimately depend upon finite resources (especially energy), and are thus unsustainable, is counterproductive in my eyes — to say little about the devastating ecological impacts of this pursuit and appeals to governing bodies/institutions, but these are a whole other kettle of fish.
‘Degrowth’ or ‘simplification’ or ‘collapse’ or whatever term we wish to use to categorise the contraction of the human experiment is coming, and I’m as confident as I can be (in a complex world full of nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena that makes predicting the future impossible) making that assertion. The Laws of Thermodynamics (especially as they pertain to Entropy), biological principles (i.e., ecological overshoot), and pre/historical examples all point to this process being inevitable and irreversible.
In an ideal world, we would ‘manage’ this in a way that avoids the most negative consequences of being significantly into ecological overshoot. As the late Dr. Albert Bartlett argues in his presentation Arithmetic, Population, and Energy, everything that we regard as ‘good’ makes our situation worse, while everything we regard as ‘bad’ helps to lessen the consequences and “there is a dilemma if ever there was one” — he was specifically referring to population growth (one of the causes of our overshoot, perhaps the most significant) — but the principle is the same.
We don’t exist in an ideal world, however, and the impediments/roadblocks to ‘managing’ overshoot consequences are plenty and, in my opinion, insurmountable. But, please don’t misinterpret my criticism of some as an attack upon the general philosophy. I believe the ‘degrowth’ message is fundamental to attempts to ‘soften the fall’ and have spoken in favour of ‘degrowth’ on numerous occasions. That I perceive a not insignificant number of people commenting within your Facebook Group about technological ‘solutions’ is what my post was attempting to zero in on and take issue with.
The evidence is overwhelming that it is our ‘successes’ through the leveraging of our technological innovations (and the resources it has allowed us to exploit) that have led us into overshoot by artificially expanding the natural carrying capacity of our planet for homo sapiens. That more or different complex industrial technologies can prevent or mitigate the coming storm needs to be confronted in my opinion since it makes a horrible situation even worse.
The Just Collapse movement is a great example of how we might approach the coming storm in a way that mitigates the consequences of our overshoot: pursuing a ‘planned collapse’. It doesn’t, for the most part, advocate appeals to government knowing full well that ‘the-powers-that-be’ are determined and incentivised to pursue growth (the exception being more complex societal goals such as leading the decommissioning of nuclear power plants). It argues for local communities/groups to use socioecological justice principles to ease our descent.
‘Degrowth’, of course, means many things to many people. The interpretive differences that exist remind me of a guest psychology lecture on human intelligence I attended while an undergraduate at Western University (I was intrigued with the subject because of my growing interest in hominid evolution and the role that ‘intelligence’ has played in it) . The professor began with an attempt to define intelligence, stating that “if you ask 100 psychologists their definition of intelligence, you are likely to get more than 100 different interpretations”. This is where disagreements can arise but I think you have said that we likely agree on far more than we disagree on, and I would agree wholeheartedly.
For me, a ‘planned collapse’ is not significantly different from the ‘managed contraction’ advocated by the ‘degrowth movement’. Perhaps the most pertinent difference is the idea that our ‘collapse’ is unavoidable in the former but not so much, if at all, in the latter. And this is not a non-significant difference; it is one that is perhaps at the core of the disagreement that has arisen in response to my post.
I continue to believe that our diminishing resources (particularly material/mineral and energy ones) need to be focused upon decommissioning the dangerous complexities we have scattered about the planet and relocalising our basic needs as quickly as possible on a much significantly reduced scale (especially in terms of complex, industrial technologies). I have little to no agency in the vast majority of what is needed but I can share my learnings and focus on improving my own family’s and community’s resilience/self-reliance. Sharing the ‘degrowth’ philosophy will continue to be part of what I do, but I also have no illusions about the approaching cliff and being able to avoid it. I have accepted what I deem to be unavoidable and am attempting to prepare myself, my family, and my community accordingly. Only time will tell if any of it makes any difference on any of those three levels.
I also want to emphasise that the disagreements about our predicament while at times becomes ‘heated’, such conversations are worthwhile in the sense of clarifying mis/understandings and occasionally helping individuals to view things from a slightly different perspective. Of course, they can also lead to an entrenchment of beliefs as one seeks (mostly without conscious awareness) to reduce the stress of cognitive dissonance. We all need to be aware of and confront our personal biases when reflecting upon our beliefs. This is much harder to accomplish, if not impossible, in the moment.
There is likely no time for the incrementalism and ‘breakthrough’ technologies many advocates of degrowth rely upon to keep certain beliefs afloat. To say little about the ecological destruction these approaches further.
Yes, spread the message about ‘degrowth’. Encourage a managed contraction of the human experiment. But understand, we’re in a predicament without solutions and time is not on our side. Get through the grieving as quickly as you can and move on to some actions that will help to mitigate the inevitable consequences for your family/friends/local community. And, make as certain as you can that the actions do not exacerbate our predicament by feeding the monster that is continued growth.
My next Contemplation will lay out the impediments humanity faces in any attempt at ‘managed’ contraction/simplification/collapse by way of the pre/historical evidence provided by archaeology and previous experiments in large, complex societies…
Recently 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.