from the journal “nature” . . .
Wealthy countries can create prosperity while using less materials and energy
if they abandon economic growth as an objective,
argues a group of researchers in ecological economics.
They outline five key research challenges that will have to be met
to re-focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being.
“The question is no longer whether growth will run into limits,” they write,
“but rather how we can enable societies to prosper without growth,
to ensure a just and ecological future.”
cheers,
craig
I agree that it is good to see Nature tackling the subject of degrowth and this is a good article by way of introducing some of its basic principles. However, there are major issues. Here are some reflections I just sent to another group that had introduced this article:
-------------------------------------------------------------
[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email] |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/6467bc7fe97841bc94902d8da219b65f%40mail.ubc.ca.
Martin Calisto Friant
Tel: +31 636 08 7300
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-calisto-friant/
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Calisto_Friant
Skype: martin.friant
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CANz%2BBQynPuUw1e-LS9vmvz51CFj3Zkum5r3-LzF2MRNft%2BreuA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CANz%2BBQynPuUw1e-LS9vmvz51CFj3Zkum5r3-LzF2MRNft%2BreuA%40mail.gmail.com.
At the Nature page, I happened to see:
Related Articles
GDP is getting a makeover — what it means for economies, health and the planet
Are there limits to economic growth? It’s time to call time on a 50-year argument
Assessing social aid: the scale-up process needs evidence, too
Climate change is costing trillions — and low-income countries are paying the price
-- Ashwani Vasishth vasi...@ramapo.edu (201) 684-6616 (Jabber-enabled) http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth -------------------------------------------------------- Professor of Sustainability Convener, Sustainability Program (BA) Convenor, Environmental Studies Program (BA) Director, Center for Sustainability http://ramapo.edu/ramapo-green http://ramapo.edu/sustainability You can ALWAYS set up an Appointment with me, without negotiation, seven days a week, at: https://calendly.com/vasishth/webex-meeting Ramapo College of New Jersey 505 Ramapo Valley Road, SSHS, Mahwah, NJ 07430 -------------------------------------------------------- I respectfully acknowledge that Ramapo College is located on the ancestral and traditional Indigenous territory of the Ramapough Lenape Nation.
Related Articles
GDP is getting a makeover — what it means for economies, health and the planet
Are there limits to economic growth? It’s time to call time on a 50-year argument
Assessing social aid: the scale-up process needs evidence, too
Climate change is costing trillions — and low-income countries are paying the price
--
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CANz%2BBQynPuUw1e-LS9vmvz51CFj3Zkum5r3-LzF2MRNft%2BreuA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/f0NMX2OACt5eWpbIOI11Aeb89q96PcRjZaMFh_Gitt3mTN0erriD-5MtkNCOrZM6%40ip-10-0-10-113.cloze.com.
Can anyone tell me why the current system is contradictory?
John,You say below: "Both outcomes are the result of normal behavior". What do you mean by "normal behavior"? Are you speaking of people, system(s), or one in response to the other?Thanks
--
-
Hi John, (and all),
Thank you for this piece and your life’s work.
I want to test my understanding of your insights and of where they take me.
As I follow your logic, I see you drawing these conclusions, although not in this language:
1. The deepest source of our troubles is that we who are Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) persons in MTI cultures have inherited and been formed by cultures which develop us as half-brained persons in half-brained cultures. For official purposes and in official places we are left-brained. On our own time and space we can be right-brained if we like that kind of thing. Do not bring a whole person, with a whole brain to work in any official sector of our MTI economies/societies.
2. The price we who are MTI persons in MTI cultures must pay in order to become truly sustainable is that we must evolve into whole-brained persons who are consciously participating in the co-creation of cultures which both express and reinforce a whole-brained sense of reality and life.
At this point at least two questions arise for me:
A. Is the work of becoming, evolving into, full-brained persons and cultures compatible with our MTI form of civilization and the MTI cultures which exemplify it? Can we who are MTI persons in MTI cultures become whole-brained as long as we continue to embrace and even reinforce our formation as MTI persons in MTI cultures?
B. If the answer to A is “no”, then does this imply that the work of becoming sustainable is less about the kind of technical fixes now being pursued in order to improved and extend our MTI ways of being and living and far more about engaging in what for our species is an utterly new kind of work, namely, consciously and reflexively learning to understand and transcend our MTI formation as persons, groups and cultures as we seek to evolve into whole-brained persons, living in cultures which consciously express and reinforce a new form of civilization – one that is whole-brained?
As I read you, your answer to A is “no,” and to B is “yes.”
If this is the case, then I conclude that we are in both deeper and quite different trouble as MTI cultures than we now think we are. As I read the official elements of our MTI cultures, including much that is undertaken in the name of “sustainability”, we answer question A with “Yes”. Therefore, we do not ever raise question B.
If this is the case, then mostly we are spinning our wheels. We have activity, but little in the way of motion towards a truly sustainable world.
If the above is at all sound, then it seems to me that we should add “our MTI ways of knowing, seeing, thinking and being” to our lists of “existential threats” to the future of humanity and so much that we love.
Sadly, this item is not on any such list or on the agenda of any significant institution, at least not that I know of.
Nate Hagens talks of us being “energy blind.” It appears to me that we are also blind to the reality you have been trying to get us to see – that the roots of our troubles lie in the soil provided by our MTI form of civilization – the only form of civilization to date which lacks an integral sense of the human brain, human persons and life. Therefore, we do not see that the core work of the 21st Century is not to improve and extend our MTI cultures by making them to be sustainable. Rather, it is to transcend our formation and consciously participate in the co-creation of the next form of human civilization. In short, we need a major change of imagination and the focus of our work.
Does this make sense?
Ruben
Ruben F.W. Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
Courageous Leadership for Transforming Change
John R. Ehrenfeld 24 Percy Road, Lexington, MA 02421 781) 861-0363
Tom Walker wrote on 12/12/22 11:42 PM:
Can anyone tell me why the current system is contradictory?
John R. Ehrenfeld 24 Percy Road, Lexington, MA 02421; (617) 699-1772
--
- SCORAI website: https://scorai.net
- Join SCORAI: https://scorai.net/join
- Submit an item to next newsletter: daniel...@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/963c2463-f87e-083a-70b8-d7dc64ec51aa%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/001801d90f2c%24480c3ec0%24d824bc40%24%40shaw.ca.
John R. Ehrenfeld 24 Percy Road, Lexington, MA 02421 781) 861-0363
Tom Walker wrote on 12/12/22 11:42 PM:Can anyone tell me why the current system is contradictory?
John R. Ehrenfeld 24 Percy Road, Lexington, MA 02421; (617) 699-1772
--
- SCORAI website: https://scorai.net
- Join SCORAI: https://scorai.net/join
- Submit an item to next newsletter: daniel...@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/963c2463-f87e-083a-70b8-d7dc64ec51aa%40gmail.com.
John,
I agree… and thank you.
Ruben
Ruben F.W. Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
Courageous Leadership for Transforming Change
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/f70fa29e-9590-3831-309d-468afe0349bb%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAC0ykQFETN_i%3DCdDUufNMBGYkz57_TBF2Env1Hws%2BvwqLnMWAQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAFprfrUhM3x5szC4e1GnPnCb0KyHYagu8VYM5ho3tjOYYVVUYg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAPVm41fwUUJtCpM_gOcaCvN4rsSUdk0wv3zCQMTWtjGOhU4_1w%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAMZghTbepQCgGpGfZ03z8yaHbpM8NY-RBv%2BbOrxbuLRPzBhp_g%40mail.gmail.com.
SCORAI working groups?
Dear all,
The recent contributions by Debbie, David, and others on spirituality; and by Rich and others on capitalism gave me the idea that maybe we should form small working groups or discussion groups to explore these issues more in depth. Discussions on the listserv are great, but they tend to diverse easily and are often a mix of thoughtful research and off- the cuff ideas, which can be frustrating sometimes.
What about the following:
-a discussion/ working group on spirituality, sufficiency and consumption/ consumerism
-a discussion group on capitalism, degrowth, sufficiency and consumption/ consumerism
The KAN SSCP has a working group on Political Economy of SCP; they published a paper: Manu V. Mathai; Cindy Isenhour; Dimitris Stevis; Philip Vergragt; Magnus Bengtsson; Sylvia Lorek; Lars Fogh Mortensen; Luca Coscieme; David Scott; Ambreen Waheed; Eva Alfredsson. 2021. The Political Economy of (Un)Sustainable Production and Consumption: A Multidisciplinary Synthesis for Research and Action. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2021 (Vol 167) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105265
As you see there is/ could be overlap between these areas, but they have clearly a different core subject.
I would be interested in a membership of either of these groups
The group could present itself on the listserv, Newsletter, and website; could have 1-2 monthly on-line meetings, and could discuss their own agendas; and maybe report some of their first findings at the upcoming SCORAI conference. This may be the right moment: propose a discussion session at the conference (closing date January 15); organize a few meetings before the conference, and discuss preliminary outcomes at the conference.
Who is stepping forward to take the lead?
Warm regards,
Philip
PS the current working group Trans Covid was created in a similar way before the previous SCORAI conference; presented its initial papers at the conference in 2020, which resulted in a book: Fabián Echegaray, Valerie Brachya, Philip J. Vergragt, Lei Zhang, (April 2021) Sustainable Lifestyles after Covid-19 Sustainable Lifestyles after Covid-19 - 1st Edition - Fabián Echegar (routledge.com) (Routledge)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAMZghTbepQCgGpGfZ03z8yaHbpM8NY-RBv%2BbOrxbuLRPzBhp_g%40mail.gmail.com.
Philip,
Yes, we need a discussion group on these matters.
My strong preference is for a single discussion group. That way we will be forced to wrestle with cross disciplinary, cross cultural and cross civilizational perspectives. I finds that when discussions focus on either spirituality or capitalism alone, they then to do so in the traditional terms already well established in the academy. The results tend to be sterile and mind-numbing. We get unconscious MTI in and unconscious MTI out. More of this will not help us to understand the depths and nature of the trouble we are in. We need to wrestle with spirituality and capitalism in the same space. We may discover that the root issues are ontological and epistemic.
Ruben
Ruben F.W. Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
Courageous Leadership for Transforming Change
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CANz%2BBQwgva0nbaEQbUMGK55u9yAVtNKHyQx1aS75x2SSb7Gevg%40mail.gmail.com.
John de Graaf
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CA%2BsiMmjTB3LueSjFoTN4tr7jLZUTRSTZeaZ57QuVFO4vf%2BtyuQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Jean,
In what follows, if I have mis-read you, please set me straight.
You sound to me like most well-educated, Modern folks. You appear to presume/assume/are committed to the view that your understanding of 1st Enlightenment science is the only standard by which reliable knowing can be tested. If that is your state of mind, then by definition, understandably, of course you will not venture beyond the limits your understanding of science sets. To do wo would be unfaithful to the best that you know. To do so would be to engage in foolishness. This stance also implies that anyone who colours outside your lines is simply wrong. The possibility that what we need to learn lies beyond the present boundaries of 1st Enlightenment science cannot be entertained. There is no chance we are wrong.
To my ears this means that no truly interesting conversations can take place. When it come to the survival of the human species, I have found that most of the truly interesting conversation lie beyond what our Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) thinks its knows to be THE TRUTH. It is also the case that I can remember when I too was so faithful to my own formation as a brighter than average MTI male who could not learn beyond the boundaries set by our MTI form of civilization. But I have found that the learning is worth the embarrassment entailed.
Ruben
Ruben F.W. Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
Courageous Leadership for Transforming Change
John de Graaf
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/027401d914d8%24e2739f60%24a75ade20%24%40shaw.ca.
Hi again all,
I'd just like to respond to some mis-understandings being expressed about meditation, and perhaps about what I proposed. I'd also like to thank Debbie for pointing out some of the obstacles with uptake of my proposal which I entirely agree with.
Firstly, meditation - through an analogy. If a scientist produces a flawed study, the solution is better science, not throwing science out as not useful. If we want that scientist who produced the flawed study to improve their science, they need a supportive community who have the requisite guidance and reference points to help them improve. It's the same for meditation.
John you identified that "For some, meditation is very useful; I know others for whom it is an escape from action on the problems we face, and they seem to go further and further into themselve instead of reaching out. They are always "working on" themselves when the real work is in the world. They are often too busy in their inward search to even have time for friends and conversation. This kind of sprituality is quite abstract really and whollly individualistic. " I completely agree that those people exist. These people are using meditation as an escape probably because it can produce pleasant experiences that they crave, and they are avoiding other sides of themselves or life due to it being uncomfortable. Given the subjective nature of first-person experience and the way our brain and 'ego' can trick us, this a not uncommon trap which people cannot recognise themselves in until it's pointed out - I think it is called spiritual materialism. You also said that it's abstract and individualistic. I agree, your example is. There is a common perception that meditation is a solitary activity and while it can be, traditionally it's done in groups (sangha, meaning community). I meditate in a group every week and there are group meditation retreats almost everywhere. In groups we discuss teachings, meditate, discuss our experiences and offer guidance. The community is where reference points are, the teachers and texts, the real-world relationships and the need to get by in the world, to keep people from practicing 'bad science' (to use my analogy above).
John, you also said "On the other hand, for some, meditation shuts out the noise of the consumer society and gives them the ability to act outwardly in the world." Also "I respectfully suggest that turning outward to a beautiful world may help more than turning inward in meditation. Just my take." Both are misunderstandings of meditation and how meditation helps us engage with the world. Contrary to what many believe, meditation is a process of opening up to both what is going on inside us and outside us. As Debbie said earlier, it is about trying to understand the nature of reality. So mediation doesn't 'shut out' anything or turn inward at the expense of the outer. A person may then decide to let in what is useful and shut out or limit other things so they can engage in the world productively, but that is after meditation. Meditation is training for engaging in the world, not a goal in itself. Experienced meditation practitioners are able to have stable awareness where they simultaneously are aware of inner and outer worlds without distraction or being 'captured' by anything in particular, and are therefore able to respond appropriately to the world. Sound too good to be true? That's what I used to think too :)
John, you proposed "re-enchantment of the natural world" and I completely agree. Again the question of 'how' comes in, and I would again point to meditation as one possible way in. Meditation is often done in beautiful natural places because of the synergies. An awareness of the raw experience of our existence with an understanding of what Thích Nhất Hạnh (the well-known Vietnamese monk) called 'interbeing' shows us that we are not separate from the natural world, or each other. When we look at anything with open curiosity, without judgement or concepts it usually becomes both more beautiful and mysterious. (I looked at a stalk of asparagus in detail the other day and it was as if I had never seen one before - it's beautiful. And it shows how we usually operate at a utilitarian level - I had handled that asparagus a number of times - at the shop, in and out of bags, in and out of the fridge, in preparation, in cooking and eating - without ever really engaging with it.)
What I proposed was one possible part of addressing the root causes previously identified, not a panacea. It would need to be combined with many other things. I suggested meditation combined with the analytical and ethical frameworks that are in Buddhist traditions because that is where I believe some genuine wisdom lies. I also think much of the teaching and techniques need to be modernised and made more accessible and much that is unnecessary or untested stripped away. That is already happening on many fronts, but I believe we also need to be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is a lot that is lost by singling out 'mindfulness' and turning it into another 'executive stress ball' (as Sam Harris says). A vulture capitalist who meditates will likely become a more effective vulture capitalist without reference to an ethical framework and a clear understanding of their actions' effect on a community they are embedded in. I'm interested in exploring some avenues that when embedded appropriately in society MAY pose useful in addressing the root causes rather than looking for perfect 'solutions' (which don't exist). There are also other places where wisdom (not just knowledge) exists, such as indigenous cultures.
Jean - you raised a great challenge about evidence for "spirituality, buddhist meditation, or right-brained-ness is associated with walking a little lighter on this planet." I haven't studied this and would be interested to hear of any. It's a much bigger discussion but 'spirituality' can be a problematic word/concept. There are certainly religious people who would claim to be spiritual but have a rather destructive effect on society and the natural world.
Philip - thanks for the practical suggestion of SCORAI working groups - perhaps that is a useful way forward. I'm not sure that singling out spirituality is the way to go though. I think most white 'westerners' tend to think that spirituality is something they can consider after they have paid the bills and put the kids to bed, and so it would likely be side-lined, whereas I understand that most indigenous cultures consider it to be an inseparable part of everything. As Xanat Meza said, we "need to listen to indigenous, black and minorities folk".
All the best
David
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAFprfrXLyS7tXf2i1LrT0kUZtSofx239skTS6FEEhoSRF_SF9w%40mail.gmail.com.
John,
Thank you.
I understand your comment, and much of your work, as trying to nudge us to learn to take a meta-perspective on our Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) selves, our MTI cultures and our world which is now largely shaped by MTI understandings and visions. The point, as I understand it, is to learn stand apart from our formation as MTI persons in MTI cultures enough to realize that all homo sapiens, including us, live within a reality that, writ large, is ambiguous enough to be experienced in profoundly different ways; that the MTI way of experiencing and responding to reality is only one of the ways our species has develop over our 300,000 year journey; that our MTI ways of knowing and responding to reality are only that – one of the ways of experiencing and interpreting the universe as homo sapiens; that the question of the “fitness” of our whole MTI form of civilization now needs to be on the table in any conversation having to do with the sustainability of human cultures; that at this level there is no way of testing the adequacy of a given way of experiencing, being present in and responding to reality other than by its truly long-term (tens of thousands of years) sustainability and the degree to which its societies, communities and persons thrive. Sadly, these measures are themselves somewhat ambiguous and beyond the ken of a single, or even a few, generations. Tragically, the evidence is piling us that today MTI cultures are neither sustainable nor fit for human thriving.
Three further comments.
At this level of the “game” (Wittgenstein’s use of the term) it turns out that the quality of our knowing is directly related to the quality of the culture that has formed us and our qualities as persons. In short, knowing reliably at this level is a deeply personal and communal activity. In this work, the impersonal “objective” stance of MTI science does not work. Therefore, Jean is quite right that my earlier comments moved to include him as a person. Of course, they also includes me. My intention was, and is, not to take a shot at him, but to prod him to engage him in a conversation that deepens our understanding of the mess of complex living messes we are in.
If there is anything in this line of reasoning, then a conclusion which jumps out of it is this: the deepest existential threat to life on this planet may well be the core character of the MTI way of presenting ourselves to, experiencing, understanding, knowing and responding to reality. I note that this threat is not yet on any of the growing number of lists of “existential threats/risks to humanity.” In short, we who are MTI persons and cultures still appear to be fully confident that it is safe and sane to use and trust our MTI ways of grasping and responding to reality as we seek to increase the sustainability of our cultures and the degree to which they enable us to thrive. This is the bet we are making. Sadly, we do not yet know we have bet our lives and our grandchildren’s future on a perspective we have yet to understand, let alone test for adequacy.
As I understand him, John and I are among a small but growing number of others who seek to nurture a conversation that we see to be central to the human predicament; a conversation that, at best, today is on the fringe of our imagination, our interests, our research programs, our budgets and our cultural commitments. We are trying to be heard to say that Einstein’s quip about not being able to deal with troubling conditions with the same level of thinking which created them fully applies to our MTI form of civilization. If at all the case, then much of what is today a multi-billion dollar sustainability industry needs to be re-imagined, re-formulated and re-cast as a journey that is personal-to-civilizational in depth and scope. The longer we remain faithful to our formation as MTI persons and cultures, the more we put our future, and that of much that we love, at risk.
I realize that this perspective will sound outrageous to those who have not yet dipped their toes in these waters. In time, it can be experienced as the best “bad news” we have ever heard.
I have attached two quotes which sustain me on the journey to ways of being and living. (Disclosure: I was privileged to know Wilf Smith as a mentor and friend.)
Ruben
Ruben F.W. Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
Courageous Leadership for Transforming Change
John,
I write not to convince you, but to explain myself to you and others who are puzzled/annoyed.
I understand that it is next to impossible to engage with a person you do not know by a listserv about views of our situation that, at best, is new and strange to your ears. I also understand that I have not done what is taken for granted for admission into the academy -- set out my perspective in refereed literature in a clear and simple way. Given just these two factors it is easy to misunderstand and write off what I struggle to say.
To begin, I am saying what many others now agree on – that our MTI form of civilization is headed for a dead end. We have no long-term future as MTI persons, institution, economies and cultures. For good and ill, MTI cultures entail the “cannibalization” of the planet and living things, including humans. No matter how you try to square this circle, the result is the same. Ecological overshoot is a feature, not a bug. No amount of “sustainability” work will save MTI cultures as MTI cultures. MTI cultures are already into a longish disintegration and collapse. (Collapse, a la Joe Tainter, is caused by the inability to maintain the levels of complexity previously achieved.) As Bill Rees and others have shown, the best science of today can, and has, determined this. (I note that “the best science today” is actually breaking many of the established rules of what was taken as “good” science as recently as the 1950s. Sadly, this is the case in many places. But that inquiry can wait.)
In my mind, the next question is this: Within what frames of reference do we process and respond to the above insights about the time-limited nature of MTI cultures?
I observe that, perfectly understandably, most MTI scientists say, in effect, that “the best of our MTI science has led us to these insights, so it must be reasonable to continue to use the best MTI science to plumb the depths of the messes we are in and find a way through them. Let’s get on with it.” The sustainability industry makes sense in this light. The demands you set out in your third paragraph as the proper way to proceed reflect this assumption.
But I am not playing the established MTI game.
The architype of what I am saying is actually very familiar in human history. Both mothers and prophets say, “If you continue to be who you have become, things will not end well for you.” Note that they are not merely saying, “if you continue to behave the way you are now behaving, things will end badly.” They see a deeper root of your troubles. It is in the way your character is now formed. This does not mean that there is no way out. It does mans that there is no way out “if you maintain your present character (and all that that entails,).” The italics are critical. In short, the way our entails learning to see what you have become, owning up to it, regretting it and engaging in a re-formation of your deepest character. The Greek word for this is ‘metanoia’.
This is what I am saying to us as MTI persons in MTI cultures. “We have no future as MTI persons in MTI cultures. However, we know that new forms of human civilization can emerge in human history, because at least three forms have emerged: the small group Indigenous (hunter gatherer) form, the settled agriculture-based form and the MTI form. Therefore, in principle, it may be possible for those of us who are MTI persons in MTI cultures to put our body, heart, mind and spirits to the co-creation of the next form of human civilization. But if we do, we must come to terms with what we have become.” If the price we must pay for a future in which life thrives is to engage in personal-to-civilizational transcendence (P2CT) then so be it.
So the question I wrestle with becomes, “How do we learn to work with, support, assist the new work of enabling persons and institutions in MTI cultures to see the need to cooperate with their own evolution as they willingly outgrow their MTI selves at every scale from the personal to civilizational?”
And to do this knowing that to undertake such work we cannot simply rely on even the best of our MTI ways of knowing. Rather, we must develop our personal and community capacity for reflexivity and even meta-reflexivity which enables us to see and wrestle with the deep unconscious patterns which define the MTI form of civilization. Without this new capacity, we will likely do something we who are MTI are really good at – inventing a “new” innovation which we declare to be a new paradigm, when in fact all we have done is repaint the barn and call it a new building.
At the least, I am asking, “How much of our efforts at becoming sustainable are trying to hold on to, rescue, redeem our MTI ways of being and living and how much is clear eyed about the need and the possibility of transcending who we now are and what we have now become?”
Ruben
Ruben F.W. Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
Courageous Leadership for Transforming Change
John de Graaf
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/016801d91578%24fc1c6b40%24f45541c0%24%40shaw.ca.
As a non-academic in this space, there is not much that I feel prepared to share on either the vastness or specificity of preceding discussions. However, as a quasi-practitioner at the interface of religion/spirituality, environment and development, there are some thoughts that come to mind:
I think that the recent discussion confirms the wisdom in Philip’s suggestion to form a discussion/working group on spirituality, sufficiency and consumption/consumerism. I would certainly be happy to act as a convenor/focal point for such a group.
If one is to accept the rhetoric that the climate crisis and impending environmental collapse require a “whole of society response” then it is clear that a plurality of opinions, theories and practices will need to be considered and certain points of unity (be it in thought, action, policy etc) established that allow us to, indeed, work as a whole of society. In essence, to move from othering one another to building bonds of belonging will be key in mobilizing increasing numbers to exert less pressure on the planet.
At the same time, to reduce the concepts of religion and spirituality to the practice of meditation or the relative “sustainability” of one movement as compared to another is simply that, reductive. There are those who contend that religion is a system or source of knowledge complementary to scientific inquiry. Where science develops the capabilities to observe, measure and rigorously test ideas, religion can provide the moral and spiritual frameworks that guide or influence behavior. And while we have excelled in attaching value to things like fossil fuels, labor and so on we seem to have struggled to understand the worth of values such as sacrifice and justice as well as how to inculcate such values in people.
I don’t write any of this to defend or aggrandize the role of religion and spirituality, or to seek to influence thought one way or the other, but rather to suggest that perhaps there is fruitful territory here for exploration and the potential to create some shared understanding about a series of topics that are, at best, under-researched and discussed.
As I said, I would be very happy to convene a group to discuss the aforementioned topics so please do reach out to me directly if you have an interest in participating in such a working group.
Very best and wishing you all a restful end to the year,
Ian
Ian Hamilton | Environmental Discourse Officer
Office of Public Affairs | Baha’is of the United States
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1320 19th St. NW, Suite 701, Washington, D.C. 20036
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/016801d91578%24fc1c6b40%24f45541c0%24%40shaw.ca.
Dear Tom,Maybe a different way of looking at this is to ask whether it is reasonable to expect any system to be anything other than full of contradictions.As Daniel Kahneman puts it, he doesn't expect human behaviour to be in any way consistent. We all want many things that are mutually incompatible. That's how human beings work and it's a feature that can't be intellectualised away.In the end it boils down to priorities. The people on this list tend to put high priority on climate action - at least in words, discussion and public stance if not always, or maybe not even often, in our own personal behaviour. But that may not (in fact it does not) reflect the priorities of the broader population many of whom are much more worried about getting through the week than we are in our relatively privileged position. Others who are also privileged have other priorities too.For half a century, a whole movement has tried its best to push climate action to the very top of people's perceptions of priorities. It has failed. And carrying on with the same approach over and over is not going to lead anywhere.The difficult job of politics is to try to find a way forward when more or less everyone wants something different and when priorities change month by month depending on current circumstances.If we are to find a way forward, then we have to learn to live in that world and navigate our way through its messiness rather than fantasising about consistency and pure logic. Continuing with the framing that climate is the world's most existential threat and must therefore take priority over everything else puts us out of line with the diversity of opinion and the different priorities that are out there and have to be navigated. It therefore ends up leading to putative 'solutions' that are no solutions at all because they have no chance whatsoever of being implemented. And yet somehow it makes us feel better because we can pretend to know 'the answer' and can point the finger of blame to others for not doing what we say.More productive would be to ask the question of how do we move forward on climate change in a situation where, when it boils down to concrete actions, it is a relatively low priority for most people out there. If we can swallow that bitter pill, we have a much greater chance of coming up with practicable ideas.To Bill's comment: "So, to summarize: we often know what needs to be done but very few articles, including this latest one, detail exactly how we can overcome cultural inertia to actually implement policies that would make a real difference."
The reality is that we only 'know' what needs to be done within one particular framing - the importance and priority that WE put on climate action. Once we remove that crutch and put climate action lower down on the priority list for action (as it is for much of the population), then I suggest we really have little idea of what's to be done. Articles, studies and all the rest that come up with the various 'whats' but leave it at that - separated from the 'how' - are a sure sign that the 'what' we have come up with is not, in practice, very useful at all.BestJoe
On 13 Dec 2022 at 04:42 Tom Walker <lumpo...@gmail.com> wrote:Bill Rees wrote, "So, to summarize: we often know what needs to be done but very few articles, including this latest one, detail exactly how we can overcome cultural inertia to actually implement policies that would make a real difference."That sounds to me like evidence of a contradictory system. If we know the system is contradictory, do we know how it is contradictory or why? It would seem that understanding the contradiction of the system would be the first step of a definition of the problem if not of a solution,
Can anyone tell me why the current system is contradictory?
Cheers,
Tom Walker (Sandwichman)On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 2:23 PM 'Rees, William E.' via SCORAI <sco...@googlegroups.com> wrote:I agree that it is good to see Nature tackling the subject of degrowth and this is a good article by way of introducing some of its basic principles. However, there are major issues. Here are some reflections I just sent to another group that had introduced this article:
-------------------------------------------------------------
As with many good articles before it:
a) this paper is front- and back-end loaded with great suggestions about what should or could be done but virtually silent on how to get it done.b) the authors associate themselves with the 'degrowth' movement which has so-far eschewed consideration of the population question. This may be politically correct but is ecologically wrong-headed.
A single example of point 'a'. From the article:
"New forms of financing will be needed to fund public services without growth. Governments must stop subsidies for fossil-fuel extraction. They should tax ecologically damaging industries such as air travel and meat production. Wealth taxes can also be used to increase public resources and reduce inequality."
Agreed, absolutely!!
ButHow do we get governments to stop subsidies to unsustainable industries when politicians in many countries depend on affected corporations for their campaign funding and on those same corporations for jobs in their constituencies?How should we go about adequate eco-taxation (e.g., carbon taxes) which would move society closer to efficient full-cost pricing when any discussion of raising taxes is immediately squelched (there are huge problems in just getting adequate carbon pricing); when people are already pressed to the wall because of inflation, scarcity and other factors that raise the cost of living (keep in mind, environmental taxes are intended to raise costs/prices, by internalizing here-to-fore external costs, in order to reduce consumption) and; when true social cost pricing would likely put many goods now considered essential (cell-phones, EVs and flat-screened TVs, for example) beyond the budgets of consumers who now take them for granted? Most people wouldn't be able to fly at all when today the right to vacation in the sun is taken as a human right by many in rich northern countries!And by the way, the production of crops is arguably more damaging than for example, free-range grass-fed meat production. Tonnes of pesticides and fertilizers are spread on our crops (we may be the only species in the universe that poisons its own food supplies); diesel powered irrigation is often necessary to grow those crops; more and more crop production to feed an ever-growing population is draining critical aquafers and lowering ground water tables everywhere, sometimes leading to forest die-back when ground-water levels fall below the root zone.
How does a government go about raising income and wealth taxes when the people most affected are those in positions of political and economic power and able to "push back" extremely effectively.On that point, did you know that in the 1960s, the marginal income tax rate for wealthy Americans was 91%? This was, just, equitable and severely resented by the rich. Beginning with the Nixon presidency and every president since, the tax system has been regressively reformed to reduce the high-income marginal tax rate to as low as 35% (I think it's now at about 37%). In short, wealthy individuals and corporate lobbyists, spurred on by such things as the Powell Memorandum (https://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/Powell%20Archives/PowellMemorandumTypescript.pdf), have purposefully gradually changed political language around wealth and corporate values so that the rich pay less and less (not more and more) income and wealth taxes in the US and other jurisdictions.
So, to summarize: we often know what needs to be done but very few articles, including this latest one, detail exactly how we can overcome cultural inertia to actually implement policies that would make a real difference.
Cheers,
Bill
From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Harris, Craig <har...@msu.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 1:49:01 PM
To: SCORAI Group
Subject: [SCORAI] how to make degrowth work
[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email] from the journal “nature” . . .
Wealthy countries can create prosperity while using less materials and energy
if they abandon economic growth as an objective,
argues a group of researchers in ecological economics.
They outline five key research challenges that will have to be met
to re-focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being.
“The question is no longer whether growth will run into limits,” they write,
“but rather how we can enable societies to prosper without growth,
to ensure a just and ecological future.”
cheers,
craig
--
- SCORAI website: https://scorai.net
- Join SCORAI: https://scorai.net/join
- Submit an item to next newsletter: daniel...@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/289847737.1595349.1674226976686%40mail.yahoo.com.