Earth will prosper only by giving up economic growth

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

If humanity suddenly disappears, the Earth will turn into an ecological utopia. Within 500 years, the cities will lie in ruins and overgrow with grass. The fields will be covered with forests and wild plants. Reefs and corals will be restored. Wild boars, hedgehogs, lynxes, bison, beavers and deer will walk in Europe. The longest testimony to our presence will be bronze statues, plastic bottles, smart phone cards and an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

What will happen if humanity remains on Earth is a much more complicated question

Environmentalists and climate experts argue that today people already need 1.5 Earth to maintain current consumption standards. And if developing countries rise to the level of the United States, we all need 3-4 planets.

In 2015, 96 governments signed the Paris Agreement, which aims to keep the global average temperature rise at 1.5–2 ° C. If the Earth's temperature rises by more than two degrees, it will lead to catastrophic consequences: flooding of cities, droughts, tsunamis, hunger and massive migrations. To prevent this, it is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level of 1990 in the coming decades.

Ecological crisis is capitalism crisis

You can do without the destruction of humanity. According to Ralph Fucks and other supporters of green capitalism, we don't even need to consume fewer resources. The problem is not consumption, but the mode of production.

Ants do not create environmental problems, although in terms of biomass they are many times superior to humanity and consume as many calories as would be enough for 30 billion people.

Problems arise when the natural circulation of substances is disrupted. It took the earth millions of years to accumulate oil reserves that we burned down in just a few decades. If we learn to recycle waste and get energy from the sun, water and wind, human civilization will not only survive, but will also prosper.

Techno-optimists believe that in the future we will learn how to capture excess carbon from the air and decompose plastic with the help of bacteria, eat healthy GMO food, drive electric cars and fly on eco-friendly aviation fuel. We will be able to sever the link between increased production and the rise in greenhouse gas emissions that have led the planet to an environmental crisis. And when there are no more resources on Earth, we will colonize Mars and will extract valuable metals from asteroids.

Others believe that new technologies alone will not help us - we need large-scale social changes

Climate change should be considered "the greatest example of market failure," according to World Bank Chief Economist Nikolos Stern.

The cause of the climate crisis is not carbon levels, but capitalism, writes Naomi Klein in It Changes Everything. The market economy is based on endless growth, and our planet's opportunities are limited.

Suddenly, it turned out that Adam Smith was not entirely right: individual vices lead not to social virtues, but to environmental disaster.

To survive, we need a fundamental change in social institutions and values. This is the view of many modern ecologists, activists and social theorists, and this opinion is gradually becoming mainstream. Global warming not only caused the melting of glaciers, but also led to the emergence of a host of new projects to rebuild public relations.

Are there limits to economic growth?

In 1972, the famous report "The Limits to Growth" was published, around the theses of which the controversy continues to this day. The authors of the report built a computer model of the development of the economy and the environment and concluded: if we do nothing to switch to a more rational consumption of resources, humanity will face an ecological catastrophe by 2070. The population will grow and produce more and more goods, which will eventually lead to the depletion of earth's resources, higher temperatures and total pollution of the planet.

In 2014, scientist Graham Turner of the University of Melbourne tested the predictions of the report and found that they generally came true.

The desire to produce more and more material goods cannot continue without consequences. Economist Richard Heinberg called this "the new economic reality." For the first time, the main problem of humanity is not a recession, but the continuation of economic growth. Even if developed countries switch to renewable energy sources over the next 20-40 years, this will require so many resources that the economies of these countries will not be able to grow further.

We will have to choose: either economic growth or the preservation of civilization

In recent years, movements of activists and theorists have emerged in Europe and the United States who advocate a revision of the foundations of the existing economic system. Unlike supporters of green capitalism, they do not believe that the situation can be changed with the help of new technologies. The market system needs constant growth: a recession for it means unemployment, lower wages and social guarantees. Advocates of the new environmental movements believe that it is necessary to move away from the growth and productivity mindset.

As one of the main ideologues of the Degrowth movement, Serge Latouche, writes, “either a fool or an economist can believe in the infinity of economic growth, that is, believe in the infinity of the earth's resources. The trouble is that now we are all economists."

But what will happen to society in this new economic reality? Perhaps nothing good. There are tons of apocalyptic scenarios. Small factions compete for resources amid the scorched landscapes in the spirit of Mad Max. The rich take refuge in remote islands and underground shelters, while the rest are fighting a fierce struggle for existence. The planet is slowly roasting in the sun. The oceans turn to salty broth.

But many scientists and futurists paint a much more pastoral picture. In their opinion, humanity will return to a local economy based on subsistence farming. Technology and global trading networks will exist and develop, but without a profit-making mindset. We will work less and start spending more time on communication, creativity and self-development. Perhaps humanity will become even happier than in the era of affordable hydrocarbons.

The amount of gross product is not equal to the amount of happiness

It has long been known that GDP is not the best indicator of economic well-being. When someone gets into a car accident, the economy grows. When people are imprisoned, the economy grows. When someone steals a car and resells it, the economy grows. And when someone is caring for elderly relatives or doing charity work, the GDP remains the same.

International organizations, including the UN, are gradually moving towards new ways of measuring human well-being. In 2006, the UK Foundation for a New Economy developed the International Happiness Index

This indicator reflects life expectancy, the level of psychological well-being and the state of the ecological environment. In 2009, Costa Rica took the first place in the index, the USA was in 114th place, and Russia - in 108th. Finland, Norway and Denmark were the happiest countries in 2018, according to a UN report.

Degrowth proponents argue that human prosperity does not require sustained economic growth. In theory, growth is necessary to create new jobs, pay off debt and the well-being of the poor. It is necessary not only to abandon growth, but to rebuild the economy so that all these goals can be achieved without environmental pollution and resource depletion.

For this, activists propose to rebuild society on the principles of joint consumption and the priority of human relations over material well-being

One of the main theorists of this direction, Giorgos Kallis, suggests that cooperatives and non-profit organizations should become the main producers of goods in the new economy. Production will move to the local level. Everyone will be provided with an unconditional basic income and a range of essential public services. Manufacturing for profit will take a secondary place. There will be a revival of the communal and craft organization of labor.

The anti-growth movement still has few followers, and they are mainly concentrated in southern Europe - in Spain, Greece and Italy. Although his main attitudes sound quite radical, they are already reflected in the intellectual mainstream.

In September 2018, 238 scientists and policymakers wrote an open letter to the European Union, proposing to abandon economic growth in favor of stability and environmental well-being

For this, scientists propose to introduce restrictions on resource consumption, establish progressive taxation and gradually reduce the number of working hours.

How realistic is this? One thing is certain: no major political party is yet ready to make rejection of economic growth its slogan.

An ambiguous utopia

In 1974, Ursula Le Guin wrote the science fiction novel The Disadvantaged. In the original, it has a subtitle - "An Ambiguous Utopia", that is, an ambiguous, ambiguous utopia. Unlike the mythical country with rivers of milk and jelly banks, there is no material abundance on the planet Anarres - its inhabitants are rather poor. Dust and rocks everywhere. Every few years, everyone goes to public work - to extract minerals in mines or to plant greenery in deserts. But despite all this, the inhabitants of Anarres are content with their lives.

Le Guin shows that well-being can be achieved even with limited material resources. Anarres has many problems of its own: conservatism, rejection of new ideas and censure of everyone who gets out of the system. But this society does not suffer from the disadvantages of the neighboring capitalist Urras - inequality, loneliness and overconsumption.

You don't have to travel to fictional planets to discover a society like Anarres. As anthropologist Marshall Salins has shown, many primitive societies were abundant societies - not because they had a lot of goods and resources, but because there was no shortage of them.

There are two ways to achieve abundance: have a lot and desire little. For many thousands of years, people have chosen the second method and only recently switched to the first

Perhaps primitive societies were happier and more just, but no one today wants to return to them (except for a few primitivists like John Zerzan). Supporters of the degrowth movement do not argue that we need to return to the primitive order. They say we need to move forward, but do it differently than we do now. Moving away from a consumer market economy will not be easy, and no one knows how to do it yet. But we hardly have any alternative.

Environmentalist and political scientist Karen Liftin of the University of Washington believes that society has a lot to learn from modern ecological settlements. These are communities of people who have arranged their lives according to the principles of sustainable development: consume as few resources as possible, recycle as much waste as possible. Many ecovillages use the latest technologies for energy production and food production. Eco-settlements exist not only in the wilderness, but also in cities - for example, in Los Angeles and the German Freiburg.

Eco-settlements give people the experience of collective life - this is a kind of return to anarchist commune at a new technological level

Karen Liftin considers them to be life experiments in which new forms of social relations are developed. But she admits that all of humanity cannot and does not want to live in such communities. There are not so many people in the world who love to grow tomatoes, no matter how environmentally friendly they are.

Even the most moderate and scientifically based CO₂ emission reduction programs are not always associated with new technologies. American ecologist and activist Paul Hawken brought together an international team of 70 scientists to compile a list of working solutions to the looming environmental crisis. Top of the list are new refrigerants for air conditioning (one of the main causes of ozone depletion), wind turbines and reduced logs. And also - education for girls in developing countries. It is estimated that by 2050 this will help reduce population growth by 1.1 billion people.

The ecological crisis will affect social relations, whether we like it or not. And this is not a very advantageous situation for Russia

If today there suddenly came "a world without oil", which environmentalists dream of, Russia would lose half of its budget. Fortunately, many still have summer cottages: if the global economy does collapse, we will have somewhere to practice new methods of crop production.

The meme "How deep is your ecology?" Is popular among environmentalists. The first, most superficial level of environmental beliefs: "We must take care of the planet and protect it for future generations." Last, the most profound: “Slow destruction is too easy an option for humanity. A terrible, inevitable death will be the only fair decision."

There are still alternatives to this solution. The problem is that it is very difficult for us to take seriously such large and abstract issues as global warming.

As sociological studies show, awareness of climate change does not increase, but decreases readiness for action. The least worried about the safety of nuclear power plants are those who live right next to them

To sacrifice something here and now for distant consequences in the future - our brains are very poorly adapted to this.

If tomorrow it became known that North Korea was throwing dangerous chemicals into the air that could lead to the destruction of humanity, the world community would immediately take all the necessary measures.

But all people are involved in a project called "global climate change". There is no culprit to be found here, and solutions cannot be simple.