Abundance is a Dead End

It's just a new wrapper on the status quo

Photo by Cord Allman on Unsplash

The “Abundance” argument is out there in the wild and getting hard to ignore. I’ve been asked about it a number of times, including by a reporter interviewing me about it for an article comparing the abundance argument to degrowth. That article will be out around November as I understand it, and I’ll point you to it when that happens. But until then, let me give my thoughts on abundance.

I must admit right off the bat; I have not read Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. I know that may stop people reading this, but I need to be honest. I also don’t think I need to read the book to talk about its broad ideas and whether I think the authors are on to something or that I disagree with them.

The abundance argument has been everywhere the past few months, so I haven’t been able to miss it. I’ve listened to the Ezra Klein podcast on the book, I’ve read other articles about the idea of abundance, I’ve had conversations with people about the book and its ideas, and I’ve had a reporter talk to me about the topic. I know the broad strokes of the idea without having to read the book. People can engage in intelligent conversation with me without having read the report I co-wrote earlier this year on ecological economics and degrowth.

But I thought I should put that disclaimer at the top. I haven’t read the book, but I have a good idea of what the authors are getting at.

Let’s review.

The main argument of Abundance is that the administrative burdens placed on construction in the United States are too high. They argue that this places an unnecessary headwind on growth and innovation in the economy. Klein and Thompson argue for an “Abundance Agenda” that aims to remove the red tape and bureaucracy from our lives, that will allow people to more easily enjoy the good life. The authors believe that good life is kept beyond reach due mostly to government bureaucracy getting in the way.

I don’t buy this argument.

To me that argument seems mostly a political one, aimed at finding a new way to promise people more without angering the oligarchs - which is the real problem. That, and it totally ignores the physical reality we live in, in which the collapse of our system has already started. That collapse is coming particularly because we consume too much, use too much energy, and don’t clean up after ourselves. Promising people more of that isn’t going to solve our biggest problems. It will make them worse. But it might get some votes in the short term.

Let’s tackle the political argument first.

If someone else says it better, I believe in just pointing to that person’s work and saying, “What they said.” The two quotes below from an article co-written by Aaron Regunberg of Rolling Stone and David Sirota of The Lever, sum it up quite nicely.

It is no accident that the Abundance Discourse effectively absolves oligarchs and corporations from blame for scarcity. We live in a political and media ecosystem that is owned by oligarchs, and that rewards their mouthpieces with media amplification and book sales. So when it comes to Abundance’s authors, Upton Sinclair’s aphorism seems relevant: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

This growing populist coalition understands that in a world where $79 trillion was taken from the bottom 90 percent of households over the past few decades, the central problem isn’t a lack of “abundance.” The problem is that abundance is being hoarded by the rich.

The abundance argument is the one that “is allowed”, because it isn’t that threatening to the status quo. The oligarchs won’t really be threatened by it, so a further discussion of Klein and Thomspon’s thesis will continue, think tanks will be funded to discuss it, and Democrats will run on “abundance” in 2026.

The physics and chemistry argument.

Of course, on a planet that has pushed past 7 of 9 planetary boundaries, uses nearly two Earth’s worth of resources a year, and we have no plans to change our consumption patterns. To see our environment on the precipice of collapse and argue, “We need to speed up the process of consumption,” is both insane and irresponsible.

I understand that the abundance argument is that we can have more and better stuff if we just get out of our way by cutting red tape and unnecessary regulation. But the limits to growth aren’t bureaucratic, they are the physical limits the laws of thermodynamics place upon us. They are the breaching of planetary boundaries. We are choosing violence to our life support system so that we can have more. Mother Nature doesn’t negotiate, yet we continue on this path as though she is a bit player on the sidelines of this conversation.

Abundance still hastens the breakdown of our natural world which will lead to the collapse of our civilization because no one has the courage to say, “no” when society says, “I want more.”

The argument for degrowth at its core is about building a better community and depending on that community. A better community is what politics always promises, but never delivers. It won’t be easy, and it won’t happen tomorrow, but “too much is never enough” ends with collapse.

People may push back by saying, “but I want more stuff”. The wanting more stuff, when that is already destroying us - is the problem, not degrowth. Our culture will change from wanting more stuff eventually, but does that happen by disaster or design?

If our leaders promised us better health, better education, better communities, but less stuff, I think they would be surprised to find out that most people want that. But that would not be profitable, and not serve the oligarchy. So we continue on this path until it leads us over a cliff.

There can easily be enough to eat, enough shelter, and enough in life to provide most of us with a healthy and satisfying life - but we aren’t allowed that conversation.

Why?

Because that challenges the powers behind the status quo. “Abundance” does not challenge them.

You are allowed to talk about abundance.

You are not allowed to talk about something better.

Which is why I will keep talking about it.

Keep talking about it.

But enough of my ramblings.

Jeff McFadden said it better.

As I understand the “abundance” movement, the basis is:

Pretend there is no climate change.

Pretend there is no mass extinction.

Pretend the biosphere and ecosystem will provide infinite materials and energy, we can have all the abundance we want.

Leading Democrats believe this shit. People act like Ezra Klein is some kind of guru.

Earth votes last and has total veto power.