Hans,
Addressing your two questions.
1. No. I had hoped that I was making that clear in my earlier post.
I referenced Chapter 7 in Peter Victor's book where he makes a convincing case
for "No." I had reached that answer on my own, years ago.
2. You pose this one as a dicotomy: Talk about things going to Hell
or, alternatively, keep the secret that things are going to Hell.
That's really not a good question. My point with respect to Paech's approach
-- but it is more general -- is this: It is not a good strategy to approach
the public with a long agenda of things to fix before anything can be fixed. I
just today came across another statement by Gus Speth, which you can find here:
http://thesolutionsjournal.com/node/619.
Speth describes three linked projects, the Values Project, The Transformations
Project, and the Synthesis Project. And within the Transformations project
Speth has 11 items including going to a post-growth society, having
corporations run by stakeholders rather than shareholders (!!!), etc. It is
all phantasy.
Speth has been a high level player, high in Democratic administations and as he
eased into retirement, a Dean of a school at Yale. It is great that he has
broken with what he has spent a life facilitating and legitimizing. But these
grand lists of programs are themselves a way to keep people busy doing nothing.
Gene
On Mar 10, 2014, at 8:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Gene writes:
>
>> My criticism of this approach, i.e. describing a new economic system
>> which is to be adopted democratically somehow, is that it goes against
>> all the dreams people have in hoping for "a better life for my kids."
>
> As an answer I will ask two questions:
>
> (1) Do you think that it is possible, beginning from the present state
> of the world economy, to transition to a sustainable and equitable world
> economy while maintaining growth in the already rich countries?
>
> Many people think: if we grow carefully enough, if we do "sustainable
> growth", then we can continue to grow. Paech categorically denies this.
> His central thesis is the impossibility of sustainable growth which is
> also equitable, i.e., which does not shut out the many poor people
> living on earth.
>
> (2) Now assume your answer to the first question is the same as Paech's,
> i.e., you think sustainable equitable growth is impossible, and that on
> the contrary a large portion of the population in the OECD countries
> have to reduce their consumption. I am not only talking about the top
> 20%, I am talking about the top 40% or 50% in the US, this is why I
> wrote "we". We have to unclutter, simplify, and slow down our lives
> because if we don't, we must either rely on fossil fuels or we take away
> the right of the people in the poor countries to have a dignified life.
>
> If this is a correct description of the world we live in, what is the
> better strategy: keeping it a secret that everybody halfways affluent
> person must reduce and eliminate their luxury consumption, or making this
> known?
>
> I think the second question can be answered easily: it is difficult
> enough to get middle-class people to cut their consumption of
> unnecessary things, or to get them to vote for politicians who pursue
> no-growth or degrowth policies, if the necessity of this is explained
> clearly and convincingly, and if the benefits of such a lifestyle are
> pointed out. This is difficult but not impossible; maybe simple healthy
> living in harmony with nature for the benefit of our grandchildren
> catches on and becomes the new fad. But if nobody tells them that many
> innocent daily amenities are unsustainable, from long showers every day
> to commuting by car to living in large homes which are always cozy warm
> in the Winter and refreshingly cool in the Summer, they will never even
> consider changing their lifestyles, because they think these lifestyles
> are sustainable or can be made sustainable through superinsulation,
> electric cars, ground source heatpumps, etc.
>
> In one sentence: if it is true that a considerable portion of the people
> in the US must cut their excess consumption in order to leave a
> hospitable planet to our children and grandchildren, this must become
> widely known and debated, otherwise it will never happen.
>
> Hans
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
