I like to hedge my bets. I also operate by the motto, “hope for the best and prepare for the worst”. Degrowth seems the most realistic approach. We need to seek “sufficiency” rather than “sustainability” as the latter suggests we can go on as we are doing. Many of us are working hard on these very things. But, I also recognize that “without a vision, the people perish.” This piece by Piketty, et. al. provides an opening. Let’s fill it with a vision grounded in biodiversity promotion and community.
I am more of a grizzled, than a wild-eyed, optimist.
But I am still an optimist.
We can get to Degrowth by design. There is still time.
And we don’t need a futuristic Global Justice Fund.
The existing Mid-Century Modern social innovation of the Workforce Pension will work just fine.
Tens of trillions have been aggregated since the middle of the 20th Century into social trusts for workforce pensions, collectively, worldwide.
Pensions are already planetary in scale.
They have always been planetary in responsibility.
But we do have to do some updating.
The design of the pension requires prudence in the exercise of capacity derived from character under the circumstances then prevailing, in undivided loyalty to aims.
The last time we considered the capacity of pension was in the early 1970s. A lot has changed since then.
You've got a good argument here, but you weakened the piece unnecessarily with your statement: "It is theoretically possible that everyone reading this will win the lottery today." Since any given lottery can only have one winner, it is impossible, not "theoretically possible," that all the readers of your Substack could win the lottery tomorrow--unless you mean that only one person reads your substack. Otherwise, you are correct that this report is just another example of a prescription for a better future that falls on its face because there is no realistic political path to enacting any of the changes the authors suggest would lead us to the promised land.
This is a blue print of what to build after the collapse, it won't be possible before because no collective group of governments are prepared to initiate the deconstruction of these broken systems.
Though it is interesting to see what China and other BRICS nations are doing with their alternative international banking systems.
I think the report can be a useful exercise as long as it isn't presented as a viable path forward. That is, showing how we COULD solve all these problems, IF we didn't have the political problem of rule by sociopaths, can be very helpful; as a lot of people likely think that it's already too late to fend off catastrophic climate change, that there isn't enough to go around and it's going to come down to me and my kids fighting you and yours for survival. Yes, a viable future is much more likely to come about on the other side of some sort of catastrophic collapse than a miraculous conversion of the powerful to an interest in justice and sustainability. But it could be very helpful if the people coping during that collapse understand that solutions are possible. Sounds like a lot of the details in this report are policy suggestions that are useless as they will not be taken up by the people in power now, and after the collapse we will be doing quite different things. But the overall story could be useful.
Yes. It is a useful thought experiment, but it will never be implemented by our current leaders, and when things break down many of these things just aren't possible. I appreciate the work that goes into these things, but I wish more energy was spent on things that are possible in reality.
Like what? I think we now have a block where quite a lot of the things we want to/should do are not legal, not possible--but the collapse may well toss those restrictions away, and what we do then depends on "the ideas that are lying around." Working on strewing good ideas around is one thing we can do now. We can also do some things to prepare for collapse, and post collapse, though of course we are much hampered by the unpredictability of when said collapse will set in, where first, in what form, where next, with what speed...still, setting ourselves up for maximum self-sufficiency protects us, our families, ideally our communities, and helps us withdraw support for the Machine at the same time--AND lays groundwork for the Small Farm Future that I think is the most desirable end of the collapse (that also the title of a book by Chris Smaje).
I like to hedge my bets. I also operate by the motto, “hope for the best and prepare for the worst”. Degrowth seems the most realistic approach. We need to seek “sufficiency” rather than “sustainability” as the latter suggests we can go on as we are doing. Many of us are working hard on these very things. But, I also recognize that “without a vision, the people perish.” This piece by Piketty, et. al. provides an opening. Let’s fill it with a vision grounded in biodiversity promotion and community.
I am more of a grizzled, than a wild-eyed, optimist.
But I am still an optimist.
We can get to Degrowth by design. There is still time.
And we don’t need a futuristic Global Justice Fund.
The existing Mid-Century Modern social innovation of the Workforce Pension will work just fine.
Tens of trillions have been aggregated since the middle of the 20th Century into social trusts for workforce pensions, collectively, worldwide.
Pensions are already planetary in scale.
They have always been planetary in responsibility.
But we do have to do some updating.
The design of the pension requires prudence in the exercise of capacity derived from character under the circumstances then prevailing, in undivided loyalty to aims.
The last time we considered the capacity of pension was in the early 1970s. A lot has changed since then.
You've got a good argument here, but you weakened the piece unnecessarily with your statement: "It is theoretically possible that everyone reading this will win the lottery today." Since any given lottery can only have one winner, it is impossible, not "theoretically possible," that all the readers of your Substack could win the lottery tomorrow--unless you mean that only one person reads your substack. Otherwise, you are correct that this report is just another example of a prescription for a better future that falls on its face because there is no realistic political path to enacting any of the changes the authors suggest would lead us to the promised land.
There are many lotteries around the world. Although I have more than one reader, there are more lotteries in the world than I have readers. :)
This is a blue print of what to build after the collapse, it won't be possible before because no collective group of governments are prepared to initiate the deconstruction of these broken systems.
Though it is interesting to see what China and other BRICS nations are doing with their alternative international banking systems.
Very glad to see the critique of the GJP based on political feasibility. The report also has serious flaws from the perspective of achieving a safe operating space for Planetary Boundaries and escaping Ecological Overshoot https://jacksantabarbara515437.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/200695232?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fhome
Unless we achieve the latter, not much else matters.
I think the report can be a useful exercise as long as it isn't presented as a viable path forward. That is, showing how we COULD solve all these problems, IF we didn't have the political problem of rule by sociopaths, can be very helpful; as a lot of people likely think that it's already too late to fend off catastrophic climate change, that there isn't enough to go around and it's going to come down to me and my kids fighting you and yours for survival. Yes, a viable future is much more likely to come about on the other side of some sort of catastrophic collapse than a miraculous conversion of the powerful to an interest in justice and sustainability. But it could be very helpful if the people coping during that collapse understand that solutions are possible. Sounds like a lot of the details in this report are policy suggestions that are useless as they will not be taken up by the people in power now, and after the collapse we will be doing quite different things. But the overall story could be useful.
Yes. It is a useful thought experiment, but it will never be implemented by our current leaders, and when things break down many of these things just aren't possible. I appreciate the work that goes into these things, but I wish more energy was spent on things that are possible in reality.
Like what? I think we now have a block where quite a lot of the things we want to/should do are not legal, not possible--but the collapse may well toss those restrictions away, and what we do then depends on "the ideas that are lying around." Working on strewing good ideas around is one thing we can do now. We can also do some things to prepare for collapse, and post collapse, though of course we are much hampered by the unpredictability of when said collapse will set in, where first, in what form, where next, with what speed...still, setting ourselves up for maximum self-sufficiency protects us, our families, ideally our communities, and helps us withdraw support for the Machine at the same time--AND lays groundwork for the Small Farm Future that I think is the most desirable end of the collapse (that also the title of a book by Chris Smaje).