DeDevelopment Neg cfjmp lab’s DeDev File Uniqueness

Exts – Transition Key

Without a radical change in our societal foundation the affirmative will never be able to solve – consumer-capitalist society does not allow for a sustainable future – the only chance for solvency is dedevelopment – turns case

Dedev is the only chance for solvency – we live in a growth-economy not an economy with growth

Trainer, ’11 - Senior Lecturer in Sociology, School of Social Work, University of New South Wale (Ted, “The Radical Implications of a Zero-Growth Economy”, Real World Economics Review, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf)//Roetlin

For 50 years literature has been accumulating pointing out the contradiction between the pursuit of economic growth and ecological sustainability, although this has had negligible impact on economic theory or practice. A few, notably Herman Daly (2008), have continuedto attempt to get the notion of a steady-state economy onto the agenda but it has only been in the last few years that discussion has begun to gain momentum. Jackson’s Prosperity Without Growth (200) has been widely recognised, there is now a substantial European “De-growth” movement(Latouche, 2007), and CASSE (2010) has emerged. The argument in this paper is that the implications of a steady-state economy have not been understood at all well, especially by its advocates. Most proceed as if we can and should eliminate the growth element of the present economy while leaving the rest more or less as it is. It will be argued firstly that this is not possible, because this is not an economy which has growth; it is a growth-economy, a system in which most of the core structures and processes involve growth. If growth is eliminated then radically different ways of carrying out many fundamental processes will have to be found. Secondly, the critics of growth typically proceed as if it is the only or the primary or the sufficient thing that has to be fixed, but it will be argued that the major global problems facing us cannot be solved unless several fundamental systems and structures within consumer-capitalist society are radically remade. What is required is much greater social change than Western society has undergone in several hundred years. Before offering support for these claims it is important to sketch the general “limits to growth” situation confronting us. The magnitude and seriousness of the global resource and environmental problem is not generally appreciated. Only when this is grasped is it possible to understand that the social changes required must be huge, radical and far reaching. The initial claim being argued here (and detailed in Trainer 2010b) is that consumer-capitalist society cannot be reformed or fixed; it has to be largely scrapped and remade along quite different lines.

2NC Mindset Shift

Mindset shift works

Göpel 4/28 - Maja Göpel 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/communications, she lectures at universities and enjoys working in international networks. (2014, Maja, Postwachstum, “Getting to Postgrowth: The Transformative Power of Mind- and Paradigm Shifts”, http://blog.postwachstum.de/getting-to-postgrowth-the-transformative-power-of-mind-and-paradigm-shifts-20140428 // SM)

Before an individual chooses to act, he or she requires a story or mindset to make sense of what the situation is about. Acting rationally in this sense means to act with reason, in congruence with one’s worldview and the individual interpretation of the “rules of the game.” Individual mindsets, however, are not fixed when we are born, but the result of learning and socialization processes in which the collective imaginary and narratives about life, society and desirable futures provide the reference framework. So what happens if this reference framework becomes unconvincing or even unbelievable – as it seems to be the case with the narrative of continuous economic growth? It causes a lot of confusion, mistrust, politicization, fear and – opportunity for change. The latter is what the postgrowth, de-growth and beyond GDP movement is aiming at, as well as big sections of the emerging sustainability transformation research community and groups calling for strong sustainability. I want to highlight that the overarching stories and rationales for change, as well as the values, principles and rules for its realization n, are very aligned. What we see emerging qualifies for a paradigm shift cutting across theory and practice which is a high leverage point for system transformations. The term “paradigm shift” originates from the philosophy of science and usually references Thomas Kuhn as the original thinker in this context. In scientific terms, paradigms comprise assumptions that are epistemological (what we can know), ontological (what can be said to exist and how we group it) and methodological (which guideline framework for solving a problem is suitable). In the context of worldviews, many add axiological aspects (which values are adopted). Depending on how these are defined, one and the same event will be interpreted very differently. Kuhn also observed that usually several paradigms exist, but only one seems to become dominant – as it was the case with mainstream economics over the last 200 years.

Mindset shift theory is true

Göpel 4/28 - Maja Göpel 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/communications, she lectures at universities and enjoys working in international networks. (2014, Maja, Postwachstum, “Getting to Postgrowth: The Transformative Power of Mind- and Paradigm Shifts”, http://blog.postwachstum.de/getting-to-postgrowth-the-transformative-power-of-mind-and-paradigm-shifts-20140428 // SM)

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 post2015 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.”

Directory: rest -> wikis -> openev -> spaces -> 2014 -> pages -> Michigan7 -> attachments

Download 1.08 Mb.

Share with your friends: