It’s Urgent: We’d Better Slow Down

Slow down enough to see the
simple beauty in a small leaf.

Things are getting urgent, aren’t they? The average global temperature is getting dangerously close to the 1.5 deg C limit signed in the Paris Agreement. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz has shown just how unstable the world’s oil supply is. The divide in political polarisation is growing precariously wide. The Arms Race has not abated. Geopolitical tensions are on the up.

In our own personal spheres, levels of anxiety, depression, and isolation are rising. The mental health of people is deteriorating, sometimes at an alarming rate.

We’ve got to do something.

The train known as humanity is rushing headlong, and with great urgency, toward a precipice. For some members of the human race, the train they were on has already tipped into the chasm.

The urge to do something may be the very factor that impels us closer towards disaster.

The words urgent and urge contain within them the dubious assumptions leading towards the abyss. The Latin word from which the words originate – urgere – means to press hard, push forward, force, drive, compel…

Yet, it is this pushing forward, characterised imprudently as progress, which has been one of the major features driving us to this point.

Thus, urgent as it is, we must slow down.

That’s a contradiction, isn’t it? Surely, if it’s urgent, we have to hurry up and do something about it.

Contradiction – no. Paradox – yes.

Paradox is ubiquitous. Our own lives attest to it. We see paradox almost everywhere we look. At the macro level of the multi-level crises alluded to above it is no less prevalent.

Yet, we do not seem to be capable of recognising the paradox that we should be awake to.

Simply put: Everything is Urgent: We Must Slow Down.

When we examine the various crises, we can see that one of the drivers of most, if not all, these crises is speed. Getting somewhere quicker. Obtaining material objects at a faster and faster rate. Speeding here, speeding there. Rush to work, speed through the in-box, get things achieved quickly (there’s a deadline to be met – urgently!) Rush home, maybe pick up the kids from school on the way. Buy fast-food for dinner, or a pre-cooked meal that can be prepared quickly. Take the dog for a quick walk around the block. Switch through channels on the TV or surf the internet. Head to bed and turn on the alarm; no time to sleep-in. Do it all again. Faster, faster, faster.

At an industrial level the same patterns get repeated. Make more and more stuff, at a quicker, more efficient, speed so that more money can be accrued. Exploit the earth and extract so-called “resources” to get ahead of the opposition and position the company at the head of the pack. Pay no attention to “externalities” (such as the birdlife, water quality, air quality, or soil erosion), so long as the “fuel” for continuous growth of the economy is ever present.

What if we slowed down enough to recognise and acknowledge the beauty in the world? Slowing down we would notice more beauty, like the beauty in a small dying leaf as shown in the illustration accompanying this blogpiece. What if we slowed down enough to feel love and empathy for our human and non-human co-inhabitants of this planet? What if we slowed down enough to listen to our children? What if we slowed down enough to sit quietly with an elderly relative? What if we slowed down enough to feel the beat of our own heart?

If we did these things, would we continue to exploit, destroy, and degrade the natural world?

I somehow don’t think so.

We would probably also enjoy our lives a lot more.

We would probably also allow many others around the world to enjoy their lives a lot more also.

Slowing down would also slow down, and in same cases halt, the crises that surround us.

If this all sounds too much, perhaps start with just one day a week. Make one day a Slow Day.

Time Is Running Out, We’d Better Slow Down

There are lots of articles, books, presentations, podcasts, and videos that point to a rapidly shortening of time before a cataclysmic future overwhelms us. We hear that by 2050, and perhaps by 2030, we need to have reduced our dependence upon fossil fuels significantly. We read that, if we don’t do something urgently, then one-third of species on the Earth will be extinct by 2100. We look at the increasing polarisation around the world and fear for the possibility of another world war, and note with terror the likelihood that such a war could include nuclear weapons.

Or, perhaps we think of ourselves. Each birthday reminds us that we are one year older, one year closer to the end of our time on Earth. Yet, there are many things we still want to do, much we wish to accomplish and achieve.

Time is running out.

We must act with urgency.

We gotta do something, and fast.

We must complete our bucket list.

We have to save the planet.

We have to reduce carbon emissions. We have to transition to green technology soon.

Each of these sentiments are understandable. Yet, more than likely, they are unhealthy and unwise. Speeding up might get us there faster, but when we get there we will find that it is not where we wanted to be or what we expected.

Just look at the current situation we are in with carbon emissions. It can be argued that we have got to this position because we wanted to hurry up. We built, purchased, and drove private motorcars because we wanted to get from one place to another quicker. We tapped into the stored sunlight of fossil fuels so that we could more rapidly heat our homes and cook our meals. Those same fossil fuel power stations enabled the elites of the world to more quickly build their fortunes.

The mobile phone, too, is a go faster piece of technology. We can more quickly contact anyone, anywhere on the planet. We can send text, photographs, and documents at the speed of light. That’s fast! Yet, those same phones have presented us with numerous problems; e-waste, cyber-bullying, cognitive decline, and the modern disease of nomophobia – the fear of not having access to a mobile phone.

The Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh names all this as Habit Energy which he describes as,

"We are always running and rushing. It has become a habit, the norm of everyday living. We run all the time, during our sleep, the time we are supposed to be resting and regenerating our bodies. We can be worst enemies, in conflict with ourselves, and therefore, you can easily start conflict with others..."

It is exhausting us. It is exhausting the planet as well.

‘But surely we have to do something quickly in the face of imminent and mounting crises. We are in the midst of a predicament of massive proportions. We can’t sit back. We have to get on with it. We have to save the planet, and ourselves.’

I hear such sentiments every week.

And, we are responding to this predicament in exactly the way described. We are quickly digging up not only fossil fuels, but also minerals to power the green energy transition. The speed with which we are doing this has not reduced electricity consumption at all – it has simply added to it. We are using twice as much electricity today as we were at the turn of the century. Wind and solar electricity production is 1/3^rd of that increase. Wind and solar have added to the consumption, they have not displaced it. They are not proving to be alternatives at all.

What if we slowed down?

What if, as a friendly psychologist told me about four decades ago, we stopped awhile and smelt the roses?

At an individual level slowing down has been shown, in numerous studies, to lower our levels of anxiety and stress, improve our cognitive responses, enhance our connection and relationships with other people, and elevate our body’s ability to heal and recuperate. In short, slowing down is good for our well-being.

For the planet too, our slowing down would have tremendous benefit. We have vastly overshot the carrying capacity of Earth. Overshoot occurs when the Earth can no longer recover from the effects of human waste and pollution quicker than the waste and pollution is created. Overshoot is also when the Earth can no longer replenish the stores of forest, minerals, water, and other components of an eco-system faster than humans are extracting and exploiting those components.

We have been in this state of overshoot for many decades, and the rate of overshoot is increasing. Globally, we now require 1.6 Earths to satisfy our rate of extraction and levels of pollution. This figure (1.6 planets) is unevenly distributed around the world. If everyone lived as those in rich nations lived, we would need between three and six Earths to satisfy our consumption levels.

Slowing down would assist the Earth in restoring its balance immensely.

The Earth is always seeking to restore balance and homeostasis. But it needs time to do that. We could greatly assist that process by simply slowing down.

Three Psycho-Emotional Impediments to Degrowth

We live today in a world where socio-environmental collapse for some has already begun, and for others is imminent. One of the few social movements that understands this and attempts to respond is the Degrowth movement. It is one of the few movements that understands that collapse is because of overshoot, described in detail in William R. Catton’s groundbreaking book Overshoot in 1982 – more than 40 years ago!¹

On the cover of his book Catton defined overshoot as ‘growth beyond an area’s carrying capacity.’ The area now is the whole world.

Arguably, we have so vastly outgrown global carrying capacity that we can no longer prevent collapse. However, that is no reason for despair or surrender.

The Degrowth movement is one of the few movements that has not given up, nor lapsed into despair. But it faces three psycho-emotional impediments towards getting its message widely accepted and acted on. All three are inter-related, however, I will outline them separately.

I have no panacea for overcoming these impediments. I do know that there will be no one-size-fits-all solution. The three impediments are: Going Back, Progress, and Positivity.

Going Back

This is perhaps the greatest barrier because it is fuelled by one of our strongest emotions - fear. Degrowth is often thought to mean we must go back; back to a previous age, an age in which our modern comforts and conveniences no longer exist. For decades we have been told that previous ages were worse (sometimes a lot worse) than those of today. We get shown pictures of darkened streets, cold houses without electricity, inferior medical interventions, and poor working conditions. Going back to such times is a scary thought. We would rather shun such a move.

Yet, were we able to travel back in time to those earlier periods and talk with our great-grandparents we might be surprised to find that we are no happier now than they were. We might also find that rates of depression, anxiety, and addiction were less prevalent.

Yet, the idea that going back entails a worsening of the current situation persists. Degrowth is not synonymous with ‘going back’ but the two notions have become entwined within the minds of many leaders and other people. It will be an emotional obstacle that the Degrowth movement will have to overcome.

Progress

If fear drives the impediment of Going Back, then desire drives the impediment of the myth of Progress. The idea of progress energises our desire for a better life, a life of greater comfort and more convenience (as well as conveniences). The idea that we must progress has been with us for a long time, and gained momentum following WW1, WW2 and the Great Depression with what Catton terms the Age of Exuberance. This Age resulted in consumption on a grand scale, with the American Dream being beamed into the living rooms of not only Americans but also the residents of westernised nations throughout the world.

Progress became associated with betterment, improvement, comfort, and convenience. It told us to look forward, to see tomorrow (or at least next year) as being better than today. Yet again, paradoxically, although we have greater “comforts” in our lives than our grandparents did, and even more than we did in our youth (for those of us of advanced years) our lives are no better. Mental health issues are worse, depression, self-harm, and suicide (especially amongst young men) are at similar, if not worse, levels than they were half a century ago.

Progress also comes at a huge planetary cost. The air we breathe is smog-bound in many cities. The water we drink is polluted and, in some places, highly toxic. The ground in which our crops are grown is being leached away and contaminated with pesticides, fungicides, and insecticides.

Advocates of progress cannot abide the Degrowth movement, because for them progress is growth. And growth, for those advocates, is the means by which all those future improvements are supposed to come about. Advocates of growth will fill our screens, radios, and billboards with adverts promising a better life in the future if you buy this product. Millions of dollars each year are spent on these advertising campaigns, and millions of people buy into the advert, and buy the product.  

Progress as a myth is a means that has become an end, yet without an end in sight.

The Degrowth movement will have to address the myth of progress.

Positivity

How many exhortations every day to be positive do we get bombarded with?

Positivity when it becomes toxic is an unhealthy state. Toxic positivity ignores and negates emotions such as sadness, sorrow, anger, disappointment, and such. Positivity tells us to ignore the perils, dangers, and cruelty of the world.

For the Degrowth movement, positivity is an impediment, because it so easily leads to the belief that there is no need to change. Positivity maintains and promotes the Business-As-Usual economic model.

Positivity is also a strong feedback loop stimulating the Going Back myth. Going Back is suggestive of negativity and so becomes a powerful disincentive to considering Degrowth as an option, let alone an imperative.

It is important to recognise that positivity is not the same thing as contentment. Contentment is able to hold both positive and negative states of mind. A contented person could be happy one day and sad the next, and be fully accepting of both states. Similarly, a contented person is able to appreciate the beautiful aspects of life at the same time as recognising the ugly aspects. A contented person is able to understand that we have overshot our carrying capacity and is able to know that we must change course.

How is the Degrowth movement to address these three impediments? I have only answers for myself. What I do know, however, is that these three psychological-emotional impediments must be addressed.

I would appreciate any thoughts, ideas, or possibilities.

Notes:

1. William R.Catton, Jr., Overshoot, University of Illinois Press, Urbana & Chicago, 1982

Degrowth of Hateful, Abusive, and Insulting Language

One of the few movements that is providing both a critique of the current unsustainable system, and a framework for a system remaining within planetary boundaries is the degrowth movement.

The first International Conference on Economic Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity took place in Paris in 2008. However, degrowth’s ancestry can be traced further back in time to at least the mid-20^th century with the rise of political parties with an environmental focus. Those parties often spoke of Zero Growth; today, of course, zero growth is not enough as the world has seriously overshot many planetary boundaries. We now must degrow, with the caveat that even this may be too late.

Much of the focus of the degrowth movement is upon economics, ecology, social equity, resource depletion, techno-optimism, and decolonization.

There is one aspect of modern life that gets little attention within the movement, although (to my mind at least) it is an area of vital importance. This is the sphere of the ways in which we relate to one another and our communication styles.

If there is one truism about the predicament we are in it is that we are all in it together, albeit a few are making themselves offensively comfortable, some are surviving acceptably well, and lots are suffering enormously. Given that we are all in this, then it is obvious that we must be able to talk, listen, and act in cooperative and mutually supportive manners.

Sadly, the signs are that this is not happening, or at least, is happening far too slowly. Some examples may be of use.

A 2023 UN survey of 14,000 American children (aged 10 – 18 years old) found that 80% of them reported encountering hate speech in the previous month. In Australia and New Zealand around 15% of adults were estimated to have been the target of online hate speech in 2019.

Following Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter in 2022 and rebranding the social media platform as X hate speech rose by almost 50%.

The number of times that particular words get used within the English language is revealing. In 1900 the word hate occurred as a verb approximately seven times in every one million words used. By 1980 its use had decreased slightly to around five times in every million. However, since then the use of the word hate has skyrocketed to being used almost twenty-five times in every one million words used. That is an increase of 500% in less than 50 years.

One of the distasteful words of the English language is the word f***wit, which came into the English language around 1970. It is a derogatory, offensive, slang word mostly directed at another person and indicates that the recipient of the verbal abuse is considered to be a fool, an idiot, and very stupid. Although not used anywhere near as often as the word hate its use has grown exponentially since 1980 and is now used thirty times more often than it was in the late 20^th century.

Even the racially derogatory term n***er has begun to be used more intensely than it had been. It had been oscillating in usage of between 0.7 and 1.2 times in every one million words from the 1860s through to the 1980s. Since 1980 its use began to climb and is now at a historical high of around 1.6 times in every one million words uttered. Higher, that is, than the sickening years of slavery in the USA.

What of words that speak more kindly or harmoniously? Well, some of them have seen rising usage over recent years, although usually at a much gentler gradient than those referred to above. The word love for instance has seen a threefold increase in usage since the 1980s – still, much less than the twenty-fivefold increase in that of hate.

Although there is more use of words such as compassion, empathy, and kindness in today’s world, the rise of hateful, abusive, and insulting language is outstripping these by several factors of magnitude.

Disrespectful, vicious, offensive, and rude ways of speaking to each other have been on an exponential growth curve over the past 40 – 50 years.

The growth in hateful, abusive, and insulting language spills over into our political, social, and infrastructural realms. Political polarization is on the rise, fueled by narcissistic leaders intent on using such polarization for their own power plays. Coexistent with polarization has come a decrease in trust.

Increased polarization and decreased trust only exacerbates the use of hateful, abusive, and insulting language as antagonistic groups of people attempt to shout down those they view as their enemies. In turn, hateful, abusive, and insulting language helps to create and intensify polarization. The covid pandemic did nothing to ease these tensions, indeed, it only intensified the hatred and distrust between people, no matter what position was taken by proponents of different ways of viewing the cause and alleviation of the pandemic.

At an international level such polarization and hate becomes violent and war is the inevitable result. The present war between Russia and Ukraine is the first on European soil since the end of World War 2 in 1945.

Somehow this growth in hateful, abusive, and insulting language, polarization, and decreased trust must be curbed. It all needs to degrow.

I admit that I do not know how that can be done. My work in community development exposed me to mediation practices and ways of working that were cooperative and nonviolent. I know it can be done at a community level.

Can it be done at a national and international level?

More exploration is required, and I would advocate that the Degrowth Movement consider how to degrow this alarming trend.

Returning to an Island

Recently I re-read Island by Aldous Huxley.¹ It had been around five decades since I first read it.

Those five decades have now allowed me to gain a greater insight into what Huxley was writing about and alluding to.

Island was Huxley’s final novel and served as the counterpoint to his dystopian novel, Brave New World, published thirty years earlier. Could Huxley have written this when he was younger? Perhaps, like me as his reader, he had to be older to dream and appreciate possibilities?

Island is indeed a dream, but not an impossible one. Possibilities exist. The following quotation is at the heart of this novel, both figuratively and literally (on p 170-171 of 329 pages). The possibility described here will find a resonance with many readers, especially those attracted to the ideas of degrowth. The practical philosophy of the island of Pala is explained by one of the island’s elders – Dr Robert as;  

‘… we never allowed ourselves to produce more children than we could feed, clothe, house, and educate into something like full humanity. Not being over-populated, we have plenty. But although we have plenty, we’ve managed to resist the temptation that the West has now succumbed to – the temptation to over-consume. We don’t give ourselves coronaries by guzzling six times as much saturated fat as we need. We don’t hypnotise ourselves into believing that two television sets will make us twice as happy as one television set. And finally we don’t spend a quarter of the gross national product preparing for World War III or even World War’s baby brother, Local War MMMCCXXXIII. Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence – those are the three pillars of Western prosperity. If war, waste, and moneylenders were abolished, you’d collapse. And while you people are over-consuming, the rest of the world sinks more and more deeply into chronic disaster. Ignorance, militarism, and breeding, these three – and the greatest of these is breeding. No hope, not the slightest possibility, of solving the economic problem until that’s under control. As population rushes up, prosperity goes down… And as prosperity goes down, discontent and rebellion, political ruthlessness and one-party rule, nationalism and bellicosity begin to rise.’

Within a little over 200 words Huxley has depicted the possibility of a dream; at the same time rebuking the model that the West has been, and still is, implementing.

The key to Huxley’s dream seems to be restraint, the ability to resist temptation. Failure to do so results in huge problems. Is this not exactly what we see in the world today? Political ruthlessness, discontent, nationalism, bellicosity – at the level of individuals, societies, and states.

Island is worth reading, as a young person and then again at an older age. The novel answers some questions as well as throwing up some serious questions for consideration.

One of those questions was posed by Huxley himself upon reflecting upon his two novels – Brave New World and Island. It is a question that calls out for a response from each of us.

‘How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest number of other individuals, of (humanity’s) Final End?’

Note:

1. Aldous Huxley, Island, Granada Publishing, London, Toronto, Sydney, New York, 1962

Scarcity, Plenty, Enough

Medieval grain store

Have you had a conversation with someone about inequality in the world and the unfairness of economic systems that privilege the rich and punish the poor? I have, and sometimes the other person responds by telling me that I am deluded because of my “scarcity belief.”

According to this person a “scarcity belief” is one in which no matter how much, or how little, there is, it is never enough. The corollary to this is that the scarcity belief is an error. Scarcity, according to this person, does not exist.

A quick aside: Have you also noticed that sometimes those who reject the “scarcity belief” idea are often also those who are praying for, seeking to manifest, or wishing for more abundance, more money, or more riches. It is odd.

Rejecting, denying, or attempting to overcome scarcity does not mean that there is, or must be, plenty. We live in a finite world, and no matter how much praying, manifesting, or wishing we do, that is not going to change.

Scarcity Origins

We might ask though, where the concept of scarcity originated?

I have not been able to track down any authoritative answer to this. However, it is likely that the concept arose some 10,000 – 12,000 years ago with the Agricultural Revolution. Prior to then, it most likely did not exist in our minds, except as a temporary sense of shortage or lack. Most likely, the response in this case would be to move, as hunter/gatherers, and other nomads did.

But, the Agricultural Revolution brought with it a lessening of the variety of food (via specialisation of crop growing and/or animal raising) and hence, a reliance on a much-reduced diversity of food sources. Regrettably, this reliance meant that food sources became prone to drought, floods, pestilence, and other ways in which the food supply could be reduced, or wiped out, very quickly.

In short, natural processes could spell scarcity for early agriculturalists and farmers.

The solution to this possibility was to hoard up supplies in expectation of lean times. But this too had consequences. Hoarding led to a stratification of society into those who hoarded and those who didn’t and may have resulted in a stratification of society into the owners of grain stores and those who worked for owners. (I know I am surmising here, but you may agree, that something like this is likely to have gone on all those millennia ago.)

Now, what might have happened in lean times? The hoarders may have felt protected by their stored grain (or wheat, or barley, or whatever) whereas others now became vulnerable to a scarcity. No longer able to move (as had their ancestors living a nomadic lifestyle) the non-hoarders most likely thought to themselves, ‘we cannot provide for ourselves, we’ll have to steal from the hoarders.’

How likely is this scenario, you and I may ask? My hunch is that it was highly probable.

Sketching out this possible scenario indicates where and when the concept of scarcity may have first arisen.

Scarcity Today

Today, scarcity is not a belief, nor is it a myth. Scarcity is real and has been for a number of decades. Ironically, it is the Agricultural Revolution, and the worldviews and paradigms that arose as a consequence of that revolution, which have left us in a world of scarcity.

By scarcity here, I am referring to what might better be thought of as limitation. Globally we began to overshoot the world’s carrying capacity around 50 years ago. The concept was neatly captured in the seminal report and book – Limits to Growth. We live on a finite world, which means that there are limits to how much we can exploit and extract from the world, and how much the earth can cope with our waste and pollution. Continuous growth brings us slap back up against limits. In short, growth brings us close to scarcity.

The antidote to scarcity is not its opposite – plenty.

It appears that there are only two means by which we can break out of the scarcity cycle. One, is a programme of degrowth, the other is to establish a mentality of enough.

One who knew the concept of enough was the author, Joseph Heller. I have written of this exchange between Heller and his friend Kurt Vonnegut before. It bears repeating.

When Joseph Heller died, his good friend and fellow author, Kurt Vonnegut (author of Slaughterhouse-Five,) wrote in his obituary of a party that the two of them attended. The party host was a millionaire. As the two of them talked, Vonnegut opined to his friend that the millionaire made more money in one day than Heller’s book (Catch 22) had since it had been published.

Joseph Heller looked at his friend and said, ‘Yes, but I have something he will never have.’

Vonnegut naturally asked, ‘What is that?’

To which Heller replied, ‘Enough!’

Heller knew the antidote to scarcity.

Scaling Up A Local Café

Most mornings of the week I walk to my local, and favourite, café. Many of the other coffee drinkers (some may say addicts) I know by name and a little about them. As I sit and drink my latte I notice that there are a lot of these friendly interactions. People meet and greet others they know. A large number of them have walked to the café. It is the epitome of local.

Those who take our orders and serve the coffee, and the baristas, are also known by name. And they know our names. Once I asked one of the baristas how many individual coffee preferences she knew from memory. “About fifty,” she replied. It is a friendly atmosphere. I have never witnessed an angry exchange between anyone there. The owner of the café encourages friendliness. A couple of years ago I asked her about what was important to her at the café. Without hesitation she replied, “To make people happy.”

And people are. There are significantly more smiles and happy faces than there are grimaces or scowls. Sure, I’ve had conversations with some there who felt depressed or anxious. Did having conversations with them assist them? I don’t know. Yet, they have turned up at the café for their coffee and have met with others from the locality who have listened.

Furthermore, I have been part of, and overheard, the occasional conversation over coffee revolving around politics, religion, philosophy, and psychology. Sometimes even conversations about climate change, the state of the world, and environmental collapse. Yet, in none of these conversations have I witnessed expressions of anger, judgment, or condemnation.

Bigger Cafés?

Recently, as I sat sipping my coffee, I wondered if it were possible to scale up this café? I realised that I had to answer that with a No! or, at least, a probably not.

When I look at the world and larger groupings of human beings, it does not seem possible for the considered and respectful conversations at my local café to take place. Whether the group be the residents of a large city, the citizens of a nation, or the entire population of the Earth, something breaks down in the way in which we engage with one another at larger scales.

At bigger scales, conversations become debates (literally meaning to beat down) and involve accusations, finger-pointing, and ad hominem attacks. Taken to extreme, these debates become polarising, violent, and, at an international level, often descend into war.

This subjective observation of mine has been explored by a number of social scientists over the past few decades. Most well known of these researchers is Robin Dunbar who found a correlation between primate brain size and optimal social group size in the 1990s. Extrapolating to humans, Dunbar proposed that humans can comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships. This number (150) became known as Dunbar’s Number. Since then various researchers have critiqued Dunbar’s proposal, including Dunbar himself.

Rather than the precise number of 150, the range of human relationships in which individuals are able to have some meaningful connection with ranges from about 5 up to around 1,500. These relationships become nested within each, with the quality of the relationship varying with size.

Small Is Beautiful

More than 50 years ago the German born economist, E F Schumacher, wrote the classic book, Small Is Beautiful, in which he described the virtues of small-scale farming, technology, land use, village size and other elements of social and political human economics and ecology.¹ Schumacher noted that,

‘Today, we suffer from an almost universal idolatry of gigantism. It is therefore necessary to insist on the virtues of smallness.’  And then, a few pages later, ‘People can be themselves only in small comprehensible groups.’

That was over fifty years ago. Schumacher’s observation and warning is even more trenchant today. Re-reading Schumacher’s book today in conjunction with my observations at my local café I am certain that we must seek ways to down-size and localise all aspects of human endeavour as quickly as possible.

My local café seats about 20 people indoors and up to about 30 outdoors. Most of the regulars live within a 2 km radius of the café. It is one of the friendliest cafés I know.

Scaling it up would lose all that friendliness and sense of community.

Note:

1. E F Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, Blond & Briggs, London, 1973.

What Shall We Don't?

When we realise the reality of climate crisis, social/environmental collapse, or mass extinction, a common question to ask ourselves, or others, is, ‘What shall we do?’

The question seems to be a reasonable one to ask. Perhaps even an obvious question to ask.

If we did not ask questions, then we would not devise answers. And answers to questions around climate change, collapse, and extinction, mean solutions – do they not?

More Beautiful Questions

The answers (solutions) we come up with are shaped by, if not determined by, the questions we ask. To take this understanding further, we must admit that the answers we come up with are limited by the questions we ask. It is possible to contend that it is our questions that are the limiting factors, not the answers.

Warren Berger has spent a lot of time asking questions about questions. In his 2014 book A More Beautiful Question¹ Berger defines a beautiful question as one that is:

‘…an ambitious yet actionable question that can begin to shift the way we perceive or think about something – and that might serve as a catalyst to bring about change.’

Note that Berger asserts that a beautiful question is one that helps to ‘shift the way we perceive or think about something.’ This is a critical observation when it comes to asking questions about climate, collapse and extinction.

What Shall We Do?

When we ask this question, we are asking; what shall we perform, execute, achieve, or carry out? We are asking ourselves, what action shall we take?

Therein lie the limitations around asking this question (what shall we do?) The answers inevitably lead to actions and things to make or do.

It can be argued that asking what shall we do? has steered us towards answers that have led us into the predicaments we face. It is a one way, uni-directional, linear question, with progress (and its twin – perpetual growth) as its favoured answers.

The question itself tempts us into believing that solutions are possible. We get enticed into seeking answers in new technology. It is such a seductive question that we answer it without really considering the by-products or long-term consequences of what we do.

Woefully, many of the answers (solutions) put forward to “solve” the “problems”² of climate, collapse, and extinction serve only to exacerbate the predicaments, and/or to shift the problem from one ecosystem to another.

What if we were to ask a totally different question? What if we asked a more beautiful question, one that shifts the way we perceive or think about climate, collapse, and extinction?

What could we ask?

What Shall We Don’t?

Asking What shall we don’t? is one such question.

Admittedly, this is an uncomfortable question. What do you mean – what shall I don’t?

Don’t, do not, refrain from, stop, desist, cease, abstain. You can’t be serious!

Indeed, it is this reaction to the question – that it asks for something unnatural of us – that is its potency. It is a question that very few of those facing the predicaments of climate, collapse, and extinction are asking. Perhaps the only movement asking this question is the degrowth movement, although possibly not so explicitly and not as succinctly.

Ask it we must.

If what we have done has led us into the predicaments, then surely asking what we do not do is a viable and useful question to ask.

This blogpiece does not intend answering the question, suffice to say that the question can be applied to every sphere of human life and activity. How we travel, where we shop, what we eat, how we build, what we build – all these domains, and more, can be exposed to such a question.

This blogpiece is simply posing the question as a stimulus to shifting the ways in which we perceive climate, collapse, and extinction.

Furthermore, if the question helps to bring about change then all the better.

What is on your To Don't list?

Notes.

1. Berger, Warren, A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to Spark Breakthrough Ideas, Bloomsbury, USA, 2014.

2. Problems may or may not have solutions. However, predicaments (as we are currently experiencing) do not have solutions, only outcomes.

Autobesity

Artist: Dave Derret
(used with permission)

Obesity for a human is not good for human health.

Autobesity is not good for the Earth’s health.

A comment relating to a recent “New Yorker” article¹ on SUVs suggesting that that this was a case of “car obesity” prompted me to coin the word autobesity to label one of the world’s most pressing environmental health problems.

A standard measurement of how underweight or overweight a person is uses the Body Mass Index (BMI.)² The most extreme score used to be known as morbid obesity (although now it is referred to by the less emotive term obese (class III).)

If such a measurement were to be applied to our use of vehicles (Perhaps an AMI – Automobile Mass Index) then we would have to make the diagnosis that we are suffering morbid autobesity.

Autobesity has become steadily worse since WW2, and morbidly so in the past 7 years. In 2015 there were 618 million vehicles in the world. In the seven years since then that figure has more than doubled to an estimated 1,446 million (yes! – that is 1.446 billion.)³ We went from autobese to extremely autobese to morbidly autobese in just a few years.⁴

Autobesity (as with human obesity) carries with it harmful health outcomes. As we know, obesity in humans is a risk factor for clogged arteries.

So too, it is with autobesity. Automotive arteries (roads, parking, and right-of-ways (ROWs)) get clogged. Unlike a human body though, instead of removing the blockages, more arteries get built. In rich nations of the world the amount of land relinquished to roads, parking, and ROWs is around 2% of the total land area. In cities, the figure is substantial. New York has 22% of its land area devoted to roads and parking. In London the proportion is 23%, Tokyo 24%, and 25% in Paris. Between one-fifth and one quarter of the land in the world’s major cities is set aside for automobiles.

That is autobesity.

Other harmful effects of autobesity are well known, such as the poisons and pollution emitted from vehicle exhausts – i.e. CO₂, nitrous oxides, benzene, fine and ultra-fine particulates etc.

What may be less well known, however, is that these emissions (due mainly to increased exhaust regulations around the world) are not the most harmful feature of vehicle use.

Tyre wear is responsible for around 2,000 times more particulate pollution than are exhausts. These particulates include Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)⁵ and toxic compounds (including carcinogens.) These seep into all parts of the body of the earth – air, water, and soil.⁶

As with human obesity, the weight of the vehicle contributes to this problem. To add to the issue of soaring numbers of automobiles, the weight of automobiles has also increased. In 1908, when Henry Ford began producing the Model T Ford, the heaviest of his vehicles weighed 750 kg. The average vehicle weight today is 1,800 kg. What is more, vehicles are getting heavier (contributing further to tyre wear), and likely to put on even more weight if EVs (Electric Vehicles) become more prevalent (as EV proponents predict and promote.)

Because of the battery in an EV, an average EV weighs around 30% more than an equivalent fossil-fuelled vehicle. In terms of our autobesity, EVs are not helping.⁷

Although EVs reached 10% of global vehicle sales in 2022, they are not replacing vehicle stock – but adding to it. Between 2015 and 2020 the total number of EVs in the world increased from less than one million to 10.2 million. Impressive – maybe? However, in the same period the total number of vehicles in the world rose from 618 million to over 1,100 million. That is just one EV for every 50 or so conventional vehicles.

What Are We Doing About Our Autobesity?

Not much, is the short answer.

A doctor, cardiologist, or other medical professional will usually prescribe a combination of diet and exercise for a person suffering obesity.

Shouldn’t we adopt a similar regime with autobesity?

But we aren’t. A significant proportion of vehicle trips are short, very short. In the U.S. 60% of all car trips are less than 10km in length. In Australian cities the distance varies from city to city, with between 30% - 60% being less then 5km in length. Melbourne takes the lack of exercise to the extreme, with 47% of vehicle trips being less than 2.5km long.⁸ 

All these distances are easily achieved by walking or using a bicycle.

Our autobesity is now morbid and epidemic (at least in the rich nations,) so much so that (as with obesity) it is propelled by addictive mechanisms. Replacing one type of vehicle with another (EV, hybrid, hydrogen fuelled, or whatever) will not reduce our addiction, and hence autobesity will continue to harm the planet.

Many working in the addiction field tell us that abstinence is a crucial factor in helping addicts to overcome their addiction and then maintaining a more healthy lifestyle.

It is now clear that autobesity is no different.

Only total auto-abstinence will help to heal the harm caused by autobesity.

Notes:

1. Elizabeth Kolbert, Why S.U.V.s are Still a Huge Environmental Problem¸ The New Yorker, 3 March 2023, https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-suvs-are-still-a-huge-environmentalproblem?fbclid=IwAR1XA_xJ0BBu5lQiV6tx17vdNdokwBC1kXVsrMRvq3VvrgHT7OCxJQS_umo accessed 13 March 2023

2. A person’s BMI is calculated by dividing their weight (in kg) by the square of their height (in metres.

3. Source: PD Insurance, 22 April 2022, https://www.pd.com.au/blogs/how-many-cars-in-the-world/ accessed 13 March 2023

4. If you line up all the world’s vehicles bumper-to-bumper around the Earth’s equator they would encircle the Earth more than 160 times!

5. Laura Kokko, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Tyre Production, M.Sc. thesis, Tampere University of Technology, February 2017

6, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show accessed 13 March 2023

7. Research at a Netherlands University shows that EVs are contributing significantly to the deterioration of road surfaces. https://www.brusselstimes.com/61738/heavier-electric-cars-wear-out-roads-faster accessed 13 March 2023

8. https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au//media/ProgramsandProjects/PlanningHealthyEnvironments/Attachments/vhtransch3.pdf?la=en&hash=BD49C15BA932B97CF11275C5EE7CEA85A17176F3 accessed 14 March 2023. Although this paper is from 1999, there is little reason to believe that the proportions have changed. If anything, personal observation suggests the figure may now be more dire.

Content Consumers Do Not Exist

 “In a consumer society, contentment is a radical proposition.”

Photo: Solveig Larsen

So asserts Robin Wall Kimmerer in her book Braiding Sweetgrass.¹ Kimmerer is a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and teaches environmental and forest biology.  In her book she braids together indigenous wisdom with scientific knowledge. The quote above is an obvious conclusion to make from her understanding of the energies and mysteries that pervade the inter-connections of all life on Earth.

When we contemplate this assertion the truth of it becomes apparent.

The words alone are enough to show us the distinction between consuming and being content.

The word consume comes to us via Latin. The Latin verb sumere means to take. A consumer is a taker. A taker takes from somewhere, or from someone else. A taker (consumer) takes something external to themselves, not something intrinsic.

Contentment also derives from Latin. Com(n) meaning with or together, and tenere meaning to hold. Hence, we could define contentment as the ability to hold together all the contents that make up being human. This means being able to hold, lightly, even seemingly contradictory emotions (e.g., sadness and happiness.) Viewed this way, contentment is more a state of mind than it is an emotion or feeling.

Contentment then, accepts things the way they are, but not in a care-less or resigned manner. Contentment has a conscious element and is both active and passive.

The passive aspect of contentment says: “I’m OK with this,” and “I am satisfied the way things are right now.” The active element of contentment asserts that “I have enough,” “I am replete,” and “I do not need to grasp at something, nor do I need to avert myself.”

When we understand contentment this way, then Kimmerer’s statement that ‘…contentment is a radical proposition’ becomes clear.

As a radical proposition, contentment is highly active. It shouts out, “Enough is enough!” and “this is enough!” Assertions such as these are anathema to an economic system wedded to the mantras of perpetual growth and consume-for-consumptions sake.

This is why there can be no such person as a content consumer. A consumer (taker) living under the rubric of perpetual growth can never have enough, can never be content. A consumer is never satisfied. A consumer, attuned to advertising that screams out “Buy more, buy happiness,” attempts to gratify an inner longing or yearning via something external. When that externality no longer satisfies (as it will,) the consumer must purchase more – ever more.

The Hungarian-Canadian physician and author Gabor Maté is informative when trying to understand how our individual psyches are shaped by the environment and culture we live in. Borrowing from Erich Fromm’s understanding of social (versus individual) character, Maté describes three ‘core social character traits common to most members of (our) culture.’ One of these traits he names Consumption Hunger and notes that, ‘Among the great achievements of mass-consumption culture has been to convince us that what we have been conditioned to fervently want is also what we need.’² This describes addiction.

Contentment, however, radically rejects this consumption hunger. Contentment says “NO” to the corporations, institutions, and infrastructure that train us into believing that we want more and more stuff.

This blog concludes with a poem written by Kurt Vonnegut (author of the highly acclaimed novel Slaughterhouse Five) for his friend Joseph Heller (author of another highly acclaimed novel, Catch-22.) The poem recalls a party, given by a billionaire, at which Vonnegut and Heller were in attendance. It tells of a conversation the two famous authors had:

True story, Word of Honor:
Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer
now dead,
and I were at a party given by a billionaire
on Shelter Island.
I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel
to know that our host only yesterday
may have made more money
than your novel ‘Catch-22’
has earned in its entire history?”
And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.”
And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?”
And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”
Not bad! Rest in peace!”³

Notes:

1. Kimmerer, Robin Wall, Braiding Sweetgrass, Penguin Random House, UK, 2020.

2. Maté, Gabor, with Maté, Daniel, The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness & Healing in a Toxic Culture, Vermilion, London, 2022.

3. Vonnegut, Kurt, published as an obituary poem for Joe Heller in The New Yorker, May 2005.

Fuel Consumption Is A Problem

In our world today climate chaos is recognised as a huge issue, and our consumption of fuel is acknowledged as a major contributor to that chaos. We must do something about it.

However, we are not doing the right (best) thing.

We are trying to do something by focusing upon the noun in the phrase – fuel. Sadly, most of the actors in the conversations around climate chaos are doing this. Those in the business of providing fuel (whether it be electricity, vehicle fuel, fuel for cooking, or fuel for manufacturing purposes) are continually seeking ways to make fuel production cheaper (to increase profits.) Those who are consuming fuel are also searching out ways to bring their fuel costs down. There are many too who, concerned about the emission of CO₂ from fossil fuels, are keen to promote alternative fuel sources.

However, doing something about the fuel (whether making it more efficient, substituting with alternatives, or offsetting the emissions) will change nothing. Indeed, it will keep sending us down the same rabbit hole.

Making fuel more efficient to use is a blind alleyway. Mostly, what happens when something is made more efficient, is that people use it more and/or a greater number of people use it. This concept even has a name – the Jevons Paradox (a.k.a. the Rebound Effect.)¹

When Henry Ford introduced his Model T Ford in 1908 a driver was able to travel 100 km on about 11 litres of petrol. Today’s driver will travel 100 km using about 8 - 12 litres, hardly a significant gain it would seem – on first sight. Part of the reason for this is that the efficiency gain has been taken up by increased vehicle weight. The heaviest Model T Ford was about 750 kg, today the average private vehicle is about 1,800 kg – 2.4 times heavier. Thus, in the case of private vehicles, greater efficiency has meant bigger and heavier cars, not a reduction in use of fuel. If Jevons were alive today, I’m sure he would be smugly thinking to himself – “I knew it!”

What about alternative fuels? There is a lot of hope placed in the possibilities of; “renewables” (especially wind and solar) for electricity production, lithium-ion batteries for cars and light trucks, hydrogen-fuel cells for air transport, and possibly some other breakthrough-to-come (e.g. sodium-ion batteries.)

Yet, each of these are fraught with difficulties of; scalability, time-lag (from research and development to production,) depleting access to minerals,² limits on efficiency,³ and poor EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested.)⁴

Furthermore, Simon Michaux (one of the world’s foremost energy and minerals analysts) has estimated the amount of extra electrical power required to phase out use of fossil fuels is almost 38,000 TWh (Terawatt hours.) This figure is approximately 2 ¼ times as much electricity as coal, oil, and gas presently provide, and an increase of 318% greater capacity in all “renewable” electricity generation (including hydroelectricity and nuclear power) than is available today.⁵

Significantly too, with the rapid growth of the twin favourites of “renewables” (wind and solar) this century, all of that growth has simply added to the supply of electricity – none of it has substituted for fossil fuels at all. William Jevons has been proved correct again.

Remember too, that electrical power generation from wind and solar make up only ¼ of the global “renewable” mix – the rest is primarily nuclear and hydropower. The numbers just are not stacking up when it comes to focussing on fuel as the problem.

The most serious concern however, is that each of these alternatives (like fossil fuels themselves) damage local eco-systems and are frequently disruptive of local (often indigenous) communities.

Just two weeks ago, Bala Chambers, an Anglo-Brazilian freelance reporter and researcher reported on the opposition of a number of Argentinian environmental groups to the mining of copper, gold, molybdenum, and lithium in the country.⁶

One of these groups is the Assembly of Ancasti for Life based within the Lithium Triangle. One of its members, Luciana Fernández (an anthropologist, teacher, and mother of four children) branded lithium exploration as ‘another green capitalist discourse to continue generating new products that get placed in the marketplace – all in the developed world.’ (my emphasis.)

Fernández and others, such as Freddy Carbonel, from the northern, mountainous area of Argentina (who has been an environmental advocate since the 1980s) are opposed to the destruction of eco-systems, including waterways, animal habitats, and local communities  - all to fuel rich consumer-industrial societies.

Such opposition and protest is not restricted to Argentina and the Lithium Triangle (including Chile and Bolivia.) Similar groups and opposition exists in Tibet, the USA (Thacker Pass,) and Portugal.⁷

Solving the problem of fuel consumption by focussing exclusively on the noun (fuel) is not the answer.

The Verb ‘to Consume’

Why is it that very few people and groups are unwilling to seriously question the verb in the sentence: “Humans consume fuel”?

Yet, our consumption levels are where the problem really stems from. Surely, that should be where we look for solutions.

Humans have, in parallel with all living creatures, had to consume. We have had to consume resources to feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves. For thousands of generations we did so within the limits of the natural world. However, over the past couple of centuries, and increasingly so since the end of WW2 we have consumed the planet’s resources at an alarming rate. William Catton (populariser of the term Overshoot)⁸ calls this period of human history the Age of Exuberance. We have exuberantly raided our planet’s storehouses and left waste and rubbish in our wake.

The eco-theologian and cultural historian Thomas Berry, suggests that this exuberance is an understandable outgrowth of our disconnection from our natural, and sacred, association with Nature – our home. Consumerism, he states, ‘…has found its ultimate expression in our own times, when the ideal is to take the natural resources from the earth and transform them by industrial processes for consumption by a society that lives on ever-heightened rates of consumption.’⁹

Catton, Berry, and others, clearly understood that the problem lies in the verb – to consume. How many others do?

Do we see any sign of a global movement questioning consumerism and seeking to find the solutions to overshoot?

Yes! Signs exist in the De-Growth movement, the Deep Ecology movement, and with eco-psychologists. But these movements are small in comparison to the movements advocating for, and promoting, alternative fuels.

Very few seem willing to examine what it would mean to consume less, or how we might make the transition towards less consumption. Why?

Perhaps because the implications would disrupt our ‘ego-logical desires for the 6 “Cs” of comfort, convenience, consumption, certainty, control, and coherence.’¹⁰ We might need to question who we are, and what our place in this world is, or should be? Is that too hard?

In the meantime, the majority of our thinking, planning, finances, and creativity is weighted towards seeking new, exciting (even sexy), alternative sources of fuel.  

We must shift our focus from the noun (fuel) to the verb (to consume.) The sooner we do so the better.

Notes:

1. Named after the English economist William Jevons, who first noticed the effect in the use of coal in 1865.

2. See for example Simon P Michaux, The Mining of Minerals and the Limits to Growth, Geological Survey of Finland, Report Number 16/2021, March 2021.

3. See for example: Mark P Mills, The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking, Massachusetts Institute, March 2019.

4. See for example: Megan Seibert and William Rees, Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition, Energies journal, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154508

5. Michaux, Simon P., Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels, Geological Survey of Finland, Report 42/2021, 20 August 2021.

6. Bala Chambers, Environmental defenders join forces across Argentina to stop mining boom, Waging Nonviolence newsletter, 11 January 2023.

7. Oliver Balch, The curse of ‘white oil,’ Electric Vehicles dirty secret, The Guardian, 8 December 2020.

8. Catton Jr., William R., Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 1982.

9. Berry, Thomas, The Dream Of The Earth, Counterpoint, Berkeley, California, 1988.

10. de Oliveira, Vanessa Machado, Hospicing Modernity, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, 2021.