We need real solutions
FACING economic stagnation, the approaching scarcity of nonrenewable resources and irreversible environmental damage, policymakers are vigorously doing nothing. They argue about the correct solution, spend money on faux strategies unlikely to accomplish anything significant or lasting and claim chronic crisis fatigue. Ultimately, a major change in behaviour is needed. It requires embracing a more frugal lifestyle, following the advice of John Stuart Mill (seeking) “happiness by limiting … desires, rather than in attempting to satisfy them.”
Caught in what philosopher Montesquieu called a “spiral of expectations”, the population of Western economies believe that they have a right to constantly improve living standards. Those in less developed countries, understandably, aspire to the lifestyle and opportunities of their peers in advanced economies. But a significant portion of higher living standards is based on unsustainable financial, environmental and resource management practices.
Technological developments may defer some of these problems but they cannot solve them entirely. The magnitude of the difficulty of reversing this spiral of expectations can be seen from a “thought experiment” of what a transformation to a more sustainable future – sometimes referred to as “frugal living” – would look like.
High density living would become the norm, with limitations on permitted living space designed to reduce environmental impact, consumption, and increase transport efficiency.
Vegetarianism would be mandatory. The inputs needed to produce animal protein does not match the added calorie value. Eating only locally produced food (locavorism) would minimise food waste and energy used in transport and storage. All water would be recycled, with limits on consumption. Bottled water would be eliminated other than in emergencies. Disposable items, such as redundant packaging, non-reusable storage and so on, would be banned.
Access to private cars and non-essential air travel would be restricted to reduce energy and resource utilisation and emissions. Electricity consumption would be rationed. Air-conditioning may need to be eliminated to reduce energy demand.
Mandatory population control would limit population growth and the resulting pressure on resources and the environment. To reign in rising healthcare and aged care costs, lifetime spending on these items would be restricted. One radical alternative may be to adopt the solution proposed in Anthony Trollope’s 1882 satirical dystopian novel The Fixed Period where all Britannulans are obliged by law to begin a year of preparation for death when they turn 67.
The changes are not as drastic as they might appear. Much of humanity already lives like this currently. The conditions described would also be readily familiar to previous generations.
These actions would reduce resource use and environmental impact, preserving both for future generations. It would result in an immediate sharp contraction in economic activity. But over time, the economy would stabilise albeit at probably a lower level, with debt either having being written off or gradually retired over time. Writing in Principles of Political Economy, John Stuart Mill contemplated this situation: “The increase in wealth is not boundless. The end of growth leads to a stationary state. The stationary state of capital and wealth ... would be a very considerable improvement on our present condition.”
Of course, there is no chance of adoption of these proposals.
Where questions of living standards and personal lifestyle are an issue, citizens become Nimbys (not in my backyard), Niabys (not in anyone’s backyard), Bananas (build absolutely nothing anymore near anyone), Nopes (not on planet Earth) or Cave (citizens against virtually everything). Our elected leaders are Nimtos (not in my term of office). As David Hume knew: “All plans of government, which suppose great reformation in the manners of mankind, are plainly imaginary.”
Instead, the world will undertake token gestures, such as Earth Hour. Conceived by the WWF and an advertising agency, touted as the single largest mass participation event of its kind in the world and supported by a wide range of celebrities, the initiative involves the symbolic turning off the lights for a single hour.
The Ayn Rand Institute criticised Earth Hour: “Participants spend an enjoyable 60 minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the lifesaving benefits of industrial civilisation are just a light switch away. Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the laboursaving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.” They were defending progress and electricity. Critics allege that it does nothing to reduce emissions, but may actually increase them due to complications related to rapidly lowering then raising electricity generation. It does not also factor in emissions from promoting and publicising the occasion.
Economic growth, prosperity and high living standards are almost entirely byproducts of consumption (much of it debt fuelled) and unsustainable resource exploitation. It is difficult to conceive how societies and individuals expect these to continue in a world of mainly finite resources without a radical transformation which reverses the current spiral of expectations. It is telling that thought leaders, such as Elon Musk, have already given up on Earth, embracing a science fiction future of mass inter-planetary migration.
Real solutions will continue to elude mankind so long as we remain unwilling to confront the truth of our predicament and our difficult and painful choices. – The Independent