Affluent, powerful people and their governments have a vested interest in deliberately promoting high consumption and hampering sufficiency-oriented lifestyles. Since consumption decisions by individuals are strongly influenced by information and by others, this can lock in high-consumption lifestyles.
Those who have followed this blog for quite a while know that it is not really "affluence" that is killing the planet. Affluence is the mere consequence of several fallacies, the main one being the collusion of special interests for the sake of natural resources and profits. And the "growth model" depends on that to be ever validated.
If paying close attention, we can notice that the level of exploitation is what drives the pace of growth. As long as the tide is coming in, most do not care about the pillage of natural resources and human sufferings. When Wallstreet rated firms announce substantial lay-offs for the sake of efficiency, their stocks go up and many think that it is how business is done.
If there is no growth, nobody can accumulate wealth and wages cannot be paid. And this means that percentage of growth is also vital for the hierarchy to stay in power. This lies the fundamental issue with monetarism and why our stance that the latter was never meant to enhance freedom but ensure "some" that the control of society would remain in their hands. Interestingly, that very market ideology will allow some opportunists to succeed to prove that (a lot of) money and individualism are needed to be free.
But how many achieve that realistically?
Only those very aware that leverage governs the market or can access insider trading tips have more chances to succeed. Leverage must be avoided like plague. But let's think about this for a few moments. Taking advantage of a deeply flawed system does not mean that one has achieved freedom because one still is depending on the same flawed system, with the same winners and losers ratio.
But wait: what if all of a sudden 50% or more realized the market flaws and started acting accordingly, meaning that fewer people would lose their shirts, what would in turn decrease profits because the latter would have to be split between a bigger number of opportunists. More awareness of whatever fallacy, the fewer profits can be made. Truth is an equalizer.
The only advantage is that hierarchy would be directly threatened, cease to collude efficiently and eventually fall apart. The pool of opportunists would shrink too as they would increasingly become the new norm -- and the paradigm would collapse onto itself, and would result in all Wallstreet charts showing a flatline. That would be the real end game!
It is indeed ironic when scientists warn about "affluence" being the problem afflicting the planet while unfettered materialism has been pushed down our throats for so many centuries already
We reviewed a variety of different approaches that may have the solution. They range from reformist to radical ideas, and include post-development, degrowth, eco-feminism, eco-socialism and eco-anarchism. All these approaches have in common that they focus on positive environmental and social outcomes and not on economic growth.
While it is surely great to grasp the pitfalls of "endless growth", in an environment where people must compete for profits to pay wages while affording a sustainable lifestyle, that fairy tale cannot last forever. Collusion will inherently resurface, despite all the best intentions. That's the problem in a nutshell as long as "endless growth" remains the consensus. There is absolutely no way to fix that.
Profits demand growth and growth requires "endless growth". And "endless growth" will call for many to lose their shirts every time growth hits a ceiling. Leverage or not, it does not matter. Leverage just makes busts more destructive and sudden.
So we are stuck and doomed to destroy the biosphere further if not changing the paradigm. Nature only knows one thing: no winner and no losers. Total equilibrium. She does not keep anything for herself.
Nature is into an endless unfolding "giving" mode!
The Earth and the Sun evolve in a perfect symbiosis because they obey laws whose forces are opposing but matching one another. Their fundamental difference is what makes their interaction possible. From a cosmic perspective, the Earth is not stronger than the Sun, nor is the Sun stronger than the Earth.
At this stage and since the edge of the cliff isn't that far away anymore, the paradigm shift can only be the result of a change in consciousness and a different metaphysical approach discarding "atheistic materialism" asserting that every organism can be commodified. Because as long as this premise refutes that every organism is conscious, exploiting and killing life will always appear as the cheapest options!
We will learn to respect life or ... else. The current scientific consensus will have to become humble and embrace the paradigm shift if it ever wants to remain relevant in a few years from now.
Why the Materialist Neo-DarwinianConception of Nature is Almost Certainly False By Thomas Nagel. Nagel is one of the world's leading philosophers of mind. Although he is an atheist, he argues that the materialist approach to life and mind has failed to explain consciousness, intentionality, meaning and value. This failure threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic worldview in biology, evolutionary theory and cosmology. We need a new kind of science.
Affluence is killing the planet, warn scientists | June 24, 2020
Would you like to be rich? Chances are your answer is: “Yes! Who wouldn’t want to be rich?” Clearly, in societies where money can buy almost everything, being rich is generally perceived as something good. It implies more freedom, fewer worries, more happiness, higher social status.
But here is the catch: affluence trashes our planetary life support systems. What’s more, it also obstructs the necessary transformation towards sustainability by driving power relations and consumption norms. To put it bluntly: the rich do more harm than good.
It is less clear, however, how to address the problems that come with affluence. Progressive mainstream policymakers talk about “greening consumption” or “sustainable growth” to “decouple” affluence from climate breakdown, biodiversity loss and other planetary-scale destruction.
Yet our research confirms that, in reality, there is no evidence that this decoupling is actually happening. While technological improvements have helped to reduce emissions and other environmental impacts, the worldwide growth in affluence has consistently outpaced these gains, driving all the impacts back up.
And it appears highly unlikely that this relationship will change in the future. Even the cleanest technologies have their limitations and still require specific resources to function, while efficiency savings often simply lead to more consumption.
MORE:
https://theconversation.com/affluence-is-killing-the-planet-warn-scientists-141017