Decline Solves – Laundry List

Continued ecological degradation results in mass mindset shifts—ecological protests prove

With displaced degradation, ecological value—in addition to economic profit— is captured by more powerful groups as they increase the level and quality of the ecosystem services they enjoy. But the use of power can also be in response to pressures from below for increases in ecological quality; specifically in the form of the ideology of ecological concern and in demands for ecological services that exceed current supply. We argue that ecological degradation triggers or amplifies these two factors, which tend to converge and become forces of social change. Given that humans prefer higher quality environments and the ecological services they provide for their mental and physical benefits, the environment is clearly a component in what is commonly called a standard of living. A decline in the real or perceived standard of living is an important motivating force for social action (Harris, 1977). And, similar to other forms of collective behavior, a certain level—or threshold—of concern typically needs to be met before that concern grows into pressure for change (Granovetter, 1978). Thus, the threshold would be reached when a significant proportion of the population—in size and/ or influence—experiences a real or perceived decline. We include the perception of a decline because the images of nature, the environment, and its effects are “refracted” through cultural lenses (Foster & Holleman, 2012). When an actual or threatened reduction in local ecological quality from pollution or other forms of degradation creates a real or perceived decline in the standard of living, social movements often emerge to address the problems, including applying pressure on elites in the political economy to respond (cf. Polanyi, 1944 [2001]). The response can be for the improvement of local ecological quality through the institutionalization of sustainable use and a “steady-state economy” (Daly & Townsend, 1993), but that solution is often subordinated to unsustainable economic growth (Foster et al., 2010; Pierce, 1992).

Another response to the demand for ecological services is to harness power for the capture of ecological value from distant sources; this can lead to conflict and imbalanced trade. In the modern world-system, scholars have studied the effects of imbalanced coercive power in systemic processes including colonization and trade. Core nations, or those in the most dominant trade positions (Frank, 2007), are able to extract natural resources and obtain cheap labor, either through the use of force or imbalanced exchanges, from semi-peripheral and peripheral nations (Chase-Dunn, 1998; Wallerstein, 1974). For example, typical unequal exchanges involve the transfer of economic and ecological value as low-value (but ecologically costly) raw materials flow from less-developed “extractive economies” in the periphery to developed countries in the core who profit from the transformation and consumption of the raw materials into highervalue products; some of which are exported back to the periphery (Bunker, 1985; Eisenmenger & Giljum, 2007). Moreover, core nation-states and their multinational corporations use economic and political power to negotiate the terms of trade and foreign environmental, labor, and other regulations in their favor (Woods, 2006; see also Konisky, 2008; Stiglitz, 2007). Research has also uncovered “recursive exploitation”: reforestation in the powerful core countries of the world-system, such as the United States and Japan, is linked to deforestation in the less powerful semi-periphery, such as Costa Rica and Indonesia, which in turn is tied to greater deforestation in the least powerful countries, such as Madagascar and Cote d’Ivoire (Burns et al., 2009; cf. Roberts et al., 2009)

When the growth of ecological concern is limited to the local environment, a characteristic that can be traced back to our hunting and gathering origins (Moran, 2006, pp. 9–11), the capture of ecological value from others may meet with resistance primarily from ecological limits and opposition from groups who suffer the negative consequences. As previously mentioned, the demand of payments for ecological debt by groups in the global South is one example of contestation (e.g., Martínez-Alier, 1997). Other examples include movements in India against water use by Coca-Cola (Ciafone, 2012), in Brazil against ethanol production by Cargill (Via Campesina, 2010), and movements across Latin America against ecological injustices committed by powerful groups within the countries (Carruthers, 2008).

In recent years, the ideology of ecological concern has become globalized, and may constitute a worldwide value-orientation (Dunlap, 2006; Dunlap & York, 2008) as it has been institutionalized as part of global governance (Biermann & Pattberg, 2012; Chase-Dunn & Hall, 2009; Frank et al., 2000; Lawrence, 2009; Schofer & Hironaka, 2005). The expansion of concern acts as an emergent counter-force to attempts at ecological value capture. Sometimes the pressure emerges from local groups and “boomerangs” through international organizations to return back to the local political economy (Keck & Sikkink, 1998). International certification programs, such as “dolphin safe” and organic labeling, are additional means by which ecological concern is globalized (Pattberg, 2012). Ecological concerns are also part of larger movements for global change, such as the anti-capitalist movement (Buttel & Gould, 2004) and as “a movement of movements” as revealed at World Social Forums (Kaneshiro et al., 2012). Additionally, the proliferation of global environmental, nature-based, and environmental justice organizations, such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and possibly thousands of others is evidence of other emerging global movements (Hawken, 2007).

It would be a mistake to ignore the pressure these groups and movements put on those in positions of power to effect change; if only as a means to reducing political and economic costs found in grievances and protests that threaten political elite’s legitimacy or potential constituency (Martínez-Alier, 1997). As movements and organizations emerge and polities react to the pressures by creating environmental departments and regulations, a global ideology of ecological concern becomes a real force shaping the relationships between nation-states and patterns of legitimacy, albeit with inconsistent results thus far (Schofer & Hironaka, 2005).

An additional limit emerges as systemic degradation, or the total amount of degradation across Earth’s entire biosphere. It is accelerated both by the feedback loop discussed above and by the pursuit of ecological value as a solution. Climate change, for instance, is a form of degradation that has global effects regardless of the source of pollution. When system degradation threatens the system, as experienced locally in terms of declining quality of ecological services and opportunities, another source of pressure to act is placed on those in power. Systemic degradation can also contribute to spread the ideology of ecological concern, although with a lag effect because transportation/communication technologies, scientific knowledge, and the perception of a declining standard of living have not kept pace with the ability to degrade ecosystems and the entire biosphere; in addition, any ideology is always filtered through cultural lenses and must compete with other ideologies for prominence (Foster & Holleman, 2012). Ultimately, a struggle ensues between forces of ecological degradation and protection.

Ecological degradation spurs mindset shift

Taylor, University of Victoria environmental studies assistant professor, and Segal, University of Victoria Master’s degree in Health and Social Services, 2015 (Duncan M. and David, “Healing Ourselves and Healing the World: Consumerism and the Culture of Addiction,” Journal of Futures Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, March 2015, http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/19-3-A5-Taylor_and_Segal.pdf, p. 84, IC)

We began this article by claiming that over the next few decades we will undoubtedly witness the rapid decline of industrial civilization. Why? Because a viable economy is utterly dependent on a sustainable and viable ecology and the current industrial global economy has been designed to grow constantly and ignore the limitations of a finite planet. At this time humanity is now using more than 25% more renewable resources each year than the biosphere is producing (Taylor and Taylor, 2007). Issues such as climate change and energy shortages are impelling us to confront the issue of limits to conventional economic growth as well as our profound inseparability and mutual vulnerability with the larger social and biophysical systems of this planet.

We recognize that a voluntary transformation away from a consumer based culture and towards life sustaining practices is likely not going to occur, at least on a wide level. However, as the unraveling of ecological and social systems continue to increase, this will also allow for more and more people to question their own values and life meanings. In turn, those individuals and communities that have begun to experiment with the sustainable practices and more ecologically informed worldviews will be the seeds, or little perturbations that just may influence the trajectory of the collapse in more positive directions. Further, as the veil of egobased individualism and frenzy of addictive consumerism is lifted, a rich network of ideas and practices may be ready to catch the fall, hopefully with enough resiliency to act as attractor points for a new level of cultural reorganization.

This is the silver lining to the Great Unraveling. Whether we acknowledge it consciously or not we are being affected by the larger systemic social and biophysical changes that are taking place around the world. As subsystems of these larger systems we are changing as they are changing – and conversely, as we change so can they. Individual and collective social systems rarely change without experiencing unsustainable levels of disequilibrium. As industrial society becomes progressively unhinged individuals and communities will be forced to experiment with new ways of living, both with each other and the natural world. Already, transition town initiatives (Hopkins, 2011), ecovillages, city revitalization projects (e.g., Portland Oregon), permaculture communities, downshifting and simplicity forum groups, local food and buy local initiatives are acting as social “attractor points” and as visions of hopeful possibilities. It is our hope that this time of transition will compel those living beyond their means to slow down and pay attention to the fertile inner landscape primed and ready for growth.

Yes Transition

Consumerism destroys the environment, and transition is necessary and possible—adaptation to economic decline is key to reframing lifestyles

Brown, Clark University environmental science and policy professor, and Vergragt, Clark University senior research scientist with a PhD in Chemistry from Leiden University, 2015 (Halina Szejnwald and Philip J., “From Consumerism to Wellbeing: Toward a Cultural Transition?” Journal of Cleaner Production, 5/12/2015, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615004825, p. 17-18, IC)

Since its rapid evolution after the WWII, consumer society in the US, and the lifestyles it has engendered, has long ceased to deliver on the great promise of wellbeing for all, while exacting a heavy ecological toll. It runs on its own momentum, propelled by cultural meanings and symbols, social practices, institutional inertia, existing infrastructure, and by business and political interests. Since technology alone cannot counteract the ecological cost of unrestrained growth and consumerism, much less address the shrinking gains in wellbeing, a transition beyond this dominant economic model is needed. But it is unrealistic to expect the policy and political leaders to lead that social change. Similarly, there are few signs so far that the established NGOs are about to include consumption and consumerism in their agendas. The change will need to come from the people and, we contend, have at this core an evolution toward a new framing of wellbeing.

While it is generally accepted that cultural change occurs very slowly, under some condition it may actually be very rapid. This was the case with consumer society, which emerged in the US (and other economies) through concerted efforts of government, unions, and the corporate sector when the historical window of opportunity opened up. In the span of a one or two generations the middle class radically changed its “normal” lifestyles, consumption behaviors, and its understanding of what good life consists of. Can such a rapid change take place again, this time following a trajectory beyond consumerism? The difficulty with addressing this question is that the theoretical framework for understanding cultural change of that nature and magnitude is underdeveloped. For one thing, widely accepted theories conceptualize social change as necessarily involving contestation between self-aware incumbents and challengers with specific agendas and alternative collective visions of the future. While that may be the case at in the future, the origins of the change beyond consumerism are very likely to have less conspicuous and less ideological roots. Another difficulty with theorizing about social change toward an alternative to consumer society, based on the history of its emergence, is that the story is commonly told as a historical account, not through a theoretical lens.

In this paper we propose that the cultural change entailing a new framing of wellbeing, if it happens, is unlikely to be driven by moral imperatives or persuasive campaigns, or follow the leadership of organized NGOs. Rather, the fundamental human strife for wellbeing and subjective happiness in everyday life is a more likely driving force. We hypothesize that the shifts in lifestyle choices and adaptations to the current economic realities can produce new social practices, interactions and meanings, which in turn lead to reframing the understanding of wellbeing. Extensive research on what makes people happy and satisfied with their lives suggests that such reframing can readily incorporate a shift away from consumerist lifestyles. In that reframing, materially scaled down life would be richer in other ways: more reciprocal and connected to others, and with a stronger sense of a community. We also hypothesize, drawing on the demographic and economic statistics that technologically connected, educated, confident and open to change millennials might lead the way in the shift toward a less-consumerist society. Their diminishing interest in suburban life in favor of cities, constricted economic opportunities, and the size and interconnectedness all point in that direction.

It is not known at this point whether the various forms of sharing economy, and the growing interest in the precepts of the new economy may contribute to this reframing process. To the extent that some forms (albeit in minority) of sharing economy foster social trust and community building, and that the new economy movement challenges income inequalities and many established institutions, there may be opportunities for mutual reinforcement. In this paper we note these trends and we summarize the small body of relevant empirical research as a way to highlight the opportunities further research on the possible transition beyond consumer society.
Decline forces a transition to sustainable, localized economies

Göpel, 14 – heads the Berlin office of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Her research focuses on system transformations and new prosperity models. Preceding this post she helped start up the World Future Council and later directed its Future Justice program with a focus on the representation of future generations and long-termism in current governance structures. Maja has a PhD in political economy and diploma in media and communications; she lectures at universities and enjoys working in international networks. (Maja, Postwachstum, “Getting to Postgrowth: The Transformative Power of Mind- and Paradigm Shifts”, 4/28/14, http://blog.postwachstum.de/getting-to-postgrowth-the-transformative-power-of-mind-and-paradigm-shifts-20140428)
The world now had 20 years to observe the empirical consequences of these mathematical stunts, and the call for a paradigm shift or (great) transformations has become standard in the discourse around the post 2015 development agenda, the emerging Sustainable Development Goals or the new IPCC assessment report: a renewed opportunity for deep structural change. System transformation researchers like those at the Nesta Foundation in the UK brought forward a list of five “main ingredients” for successful transformation: Failures and frustrations with the current system multiply as negative consequences become increasingly visible. The landscape in which the regime operates shifts as new long-term trends emerge or sudden events drastically impact the general availability or persuasiveness of particular solutions. Niche alternatives start to develop and gain momentum; coalitions emerge that coalesce around the principles of a new approach. New technologies are energizing the upcoming alternative solutions either in the form of alternative products or opportunities for communication and connection. In order to achieve far-reaching regime changes, dissents and fissures within the regime itself are key, rather than small adaptations and co-optation into the old regime.[3] A core element in this sequence is the “new approach” mentioned in point 3. Just as paradigms and hegemonic mindsets have a hampering effect on alternative proposals, the challenging of these paradigms and their crisis equally holds the emancipatory power for system transformations. While many argue that, with regard to the development story of economic growth, such alternatives are still dispersed happenings and nowhere near providing a consistent approach, I think we are at a tipping point. A first superficial review of a few movements shows a lot of commonalities between the core principles of, for example, the “Economy for the Common Good“[4], the “Transition Town movement”[5], and the Commoning movement[6], or the international efforts to measure a new development paradigm led by Bhutan with its Gross National Happiness approach[7] . Cross-cutting ideas and rationales juxtaposed to the mainstream economic ones are: A holistic understanding of human needs and prosperity beyond consumption Equitable and balanced progress of the whole socio-ecological system A vision of sufficiency providing freedom from fear of falling behind in the race for more wealth and freedom from constantly created shopping-wants that impede wellbeing Growth in creativity, capacities, time wealth and conviviality (process utility) in co-creative relationships A culture of respect, precaution and caring for what is already there. Shedding old paradigms and imaginaries of life, society and desirable futures usually goes alongside crises in the “real” world. We are looking at a rocky ride ahead, but the more clarity we have about where we want to get and how it can be done, the better we can coordinate. This leaves me to finish with Milton Friedman: “Only a crisis-actual or perceived-produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.”

A2 “Human Nature”

They’re empirically wrong—post-consumerist communities can exist

Chatzidakis, Royal Holloway University of London marketing senior lecturer, et al 2014 (Andreas; Gretchen Larsen, Durham University marketing senior lecturer; and Simon Bishop, Nottingham University Business School organizational behavior assistant professor; “Farewell to consumerism: Countervailing logics of growth in consumption,” Ephemera, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2014, http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/14-4chatzidakislarsenbishop.pdf, p. 760, IC)

The associated logic of post-consumerist citizenship centres on a denial of consumption as a central, meaningful act in and of itself (Soper, Ryle and Thomas, 2009). Of course, consumption is not and cannot be absent in any society, but in a de-growth society the primary focus is social and community participation, rather than consumption. Critics of de-growth claim an inherent contradiction within the logic, which emerges from the view that it is human nature to desire power, and that therefore, such communal, egalitarian forms of society and economy would be impossible to sustain. Post-consumerist citizenship has however been adopted in various social movements and ‘new consumption communities’ where people withdraw as much as possible from the market-place by voluntarily and collectively simplifying their lives (Bekin, Carrigan and Szmigin, 2005). The imperative of degrowth is further reflected in various forms of consumer-oriented activism deployed by anarchist movements (Portwood-Stacer, 2012) and has been used as a key political slogan in several anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist spaces, e.g. within the Athenian neighbourhood of Exarcheia (Chatzidakis, Maclaran and Bradshaw, 2012). An increasing number of people are being drawn towards de-growth as a radical alternative to the status quo, despite facing much resistance from those who benefit from current economic systems premised on growth, i.e. owners of capital and those seduced by the promises of capitalism.

Transition is possible but growth must stop—human nature can be changed by contingent circumstance

Lawrence, St Joseph’s College New York sociology assistant professor, and Abrutyn, University of Memphis sociology assistant professor, 2015 (Kirk S. and Seth B., “The Degradation of Nature and the Growth of Environmental Concern: Toward a Theory of the Capture and Limits of Ecological Value,” Human Ecology Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2015, http://press.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ch043.pdf, p. 98-100, IC)

In response, environmental and environmental justice movements have led efforts to protect the biosphere in local and distant locations. Their work must be part of global movements toward innovation of sustainable means to live within the limits, however historically defined, necessary for ecosystems and the biosphere to provide ecological value for all inhabitants. As described by the theoretical model, and as demonstrated by societies in the past, failure results in ecological failure and the collapse of an environment’s ability to support life. Due to the expansion of these processes to the global level, the Earth system is now in peril.

Important political, economic, and cultural ramifications emerge from this model. Local, NIMBYist protection of ecological value is unjust in the short term and unsustainable in the long term. The sense of what is “local” may change as knowledge of the complexity and interconnectedness of ecosystems spreads. The displacement of ecological degradation could reach an end when there are no longer any distant resources to exploit, which could occur as resources are exhausted and/or as ecological concern becomes universal, leaving no “others.” An explicit recognition of the value of ecological services to the continuation of our species and of the connections between ours and other species that provide them is essential. But they cannot be privatized and sold to the highest bidder and/or for the benefit of some at the expense of others; that is, a continuation of capitalism’s “cheap nature” strategy (Moore, 2014, p.  308). It must be a recognition and protection of ecological quality that all should share in. And the speed of the treadmills of production and consumption that have been reducing ecological quality cannot continue to expand.

This requires a much larger cultural change, away from ecologically destructive values and practices and toward a holistic ecological view. Beck’s (2000) cosmopolitanism, in which a plurality of actors at multiple intra- and intersocietal levels strives for universal goals, is one guide. While imperfect, there is evidence that this has begun: The United Nations’ conferences on sustainable development, Bolivia’s “Law of the Rights of Mother Earth” (Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra) and the push for its global adoption (Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, 2014), and, as previously mentioned, at World Social Forums. Contra modernization theory, ecological concern is not limited to developed countries. As Foster (2009) passionately argues, it may take a socialist revolution to generate the sweeping political, economic, and other cultural changes necessary to prevent local and global ecological destruction.

We do see the potential in a global ecosocialism for avoiding continued ecological decline and collapse. But, as Harvey (1996) asserts, a successful ecosocialist project must negotiate the multiple and changing temporal and social scales at which power and meaning reside; for example, there are “two senses of universality” in which universal inclusion must coexist with particularities in identity and practice (Harvey, 1996, p. 203). The particularities must, however, recognize the equality of all, both humans and the non-human world, in the sharing of ecological quality. It may be best, then, to return to Marx via Moore (2014, pp. 287, 304), who argued that human and extra-human natures, “historical natures,” exist in a dialectal relationship—they can thrive or decline together. We believe that the emergence of ecological concern for human and extra-human natures as a universal ideology offers that promise. We hope that by explicating the social drivers of the capture of ecological value, the discussion and theory presented here can be part of that process.

Transition changes even habituated behavioral patterns—crisis scenarios are uniquely destabilizing

Taylor, University of Victoria environmental studies assistant professor, and Segal, University of Victoria Master’s degree in Health and Social Services, 2015 (Duncan M. and David, “Healing Ourselves and Healing the World: Consumerism and the Culture of Addiction,” Journal of Futures Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, March 2015, http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/19-3-A5-Taylor_and_Segal.pdf, p. 81, IC)

Research in the field of adventure therapy has posited that it is contexts of disequilibrium that allow for the opportunities of healing by unsettling habituated behavior patterns and promoting the adoption of healthier ways of being (Taylor, Segal & Harper 2010). Arguably we are now at a time in our collective history when we are experiencing greater and greater levels of systemic social and environmental disequilibrium and chaos. Consequently, we are experiencing both at the individual and collective levels new opportunities for reorganization and integration. And while the first response for many is both the denial and the reassertion of habitual behaviors as well as the arguments for the continued entrenchment of the industrial/ expansionist worldview, it is this very experience of chaos that is “the mother of our individual and collective evolution” (Dupuy, 2013, p.166). One of the principles of chaos theory is that the trajectory of a system experiencing a high level of disequilibrium can be easily be impacted by even a very small perturbation. A useful analogy is that of a ball-bearing and a series of peaks and valleys. Times of relative systemic stability are akin to a ball-bearing in a valley. Here only very strong outside perturbations can affect its location. However, times of high levels of systemic disequilibrium are akin to a ball-bearing perched precariously on a peak. At such times even very small perturbations and stresses have the potential to destabilize the existing state and determine the ball-bearing’s trajectory into one valley or another. Similarly, we are now at a time in history when even very small groups of people and communities with sufficient intent and focus can make a significant difference in helping to determine the direction of the larger social systems and even biophysical systems in which they are embedded.

Mindset shift solves—their conceptions of human nature are reductionist and misapply science

Bollier, USC Norman Lear Center senior fellow, and Conaty, New Economics Foundation fellow, 2015 (David and Pat, “A New Alignment of Movements? Part II: Strategies for Convergence of Movements,” Commons Transition, 2/26/15, http://commonstransition.org/a-new-alignment-of-movements-part-ii-strategies-for-a-convergence-of-movements/, IC)

Pat Conaty elaborated on this idea by suggesting a strategic focus on protecting and reproducing the “living economy” – the idea that “real wealth is life, not dead coins, and so we should concentrate on livelihoods and the problem of wealth-sharing and abundance… .What is the prize? The living economy. The problematique, he argued, is the same as in earlier generations – How to share the equity? That’s what the vernacular idea of ‘co-operative commonwealth’ is all about.”

The idea of the economy as a living system, and not a set of mechanical, impersonal forces, lies at the center of an important 2012 essay by ecophilosopher and theoretical biologist Andreas Weber, “Enlivenment.”[15] Drawing upon recent findings and theorizing in evolutionary sciences, Weber argues that free-market economics is based on misleading scientific theories about human nature and rely upon reductionist Enlightenment categories that ignore the creative agency of life itself. Weber argues that we should conceptualize “the economy” as a commons – a complex living system in which humans that have broad capacities to co-operate, negotiate with each other, and show creative agency.

A strategy that sets its sights on such a paradigm shift would find it very appealing to protect, enrich and extend the commons; the economy could be seen not as an extractive machine oblivious to the natural world, but as a living system that must sustain all species. David Bollier suggested that this would provide solid ground for a “movement of movements” to come together. Focusing on “real wealth as life itself” provides a powerful rationale for identifying:

Ways and means to internalise market externalities (which are harming the environment, communities and future generations);

Solutions for reducing inequality and social insecurity;

Pathways to reconnect people with nature and with each other; and

A new vision of development that goes beyond conventional markets and GDP.

Adopting the commons perspective, Bollier argued, could help movements highlight the connections between “the economy,” the biophysical environment and social communities. All can be seen as integrated into a living system that commoners themselves must co-create and co-manage: a new vision for re-imagining governance, resource management and culture. In developing a discourse of the commons, movements would be able to reclaim a rich legal history and focus on viable practical models. It would also be possible to emphasise our common humanity as transnational tribes of commoners increasingly work together. Jason Nardi agreed and felt that the Social Solidarity Economy activists could find the idea of “solidarity for the commons” as a resonant and rallying vision.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.81 Mb.

Share with your friends: