We'll either choose stability willingly or it will be forced upon us by Mother Nature and Father Time working together. I was fortunate to be working in Family Planning in East Asia when Norman Borlaug, the Father of the Green Revolution, won the Nobel Prize in 1970. At the end of his very long acceptance speech he said..."The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only."
"Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the “Population Monster”... By the time of Christ, world population had probably reached 250 million. But between then and now, population has grown to 3.5 billion. Growth has been especially fast since the advent of modern medicine. If it continues to increase at the estimated present rate of two percent a year, the world population will reach 6.5 billion by the year 2000. Currently, with each second, or tick of the clock, about 2.2 additional people are added to the world population. The rhythm of increase will accelerate to 2.7, 3.3, and 4.0 for each tick of the clock by 1980, 1990, and 2000, respectively, unless man becomes more realistic and preoccupied about this impending doom. The ticktock of the clock will continually grow louder and more menacing each decade. Where will it all end?"
"Malthus signaled the danger a century and a half ago. But he emphasized principally the danger that population would increase faster than food supplies. In his time he could not foresee the tremendous increase in man’s food production potential. Nor could he have foreseen the disturbing and destructive physical and mental consequences of the grotesque concentration of human beings into the poisoned and clangorous environment of pathologically hypertrophied megalopoles. Can human beings endure the strain? Abnormal stresses and strains tend to accentuate man’s animal instincts and provoke irrational and socially disruptive behavior among the less stable individuals in the maddening crowd."
"We must recognize the fact that adequate food is only the first requisite for life. For a decent and humane life we must also provide an opportunity for good education, remunerative employment, comfortable housing, good clothing, and effective and compassionate medical care. Unless we can do this, man may degenerate sooner from environmental diseases than from hunger."
"And yet, I am optimistic for the future of mankind, for in all biological populations there are innate devices to adjust population growth to the carrying capacity of the environment. Undoubtedly, some such device exists in man, presumably Homo sapiens, but so far it has not asserted itself to bring into balance population growth and the carrying capacity of the environment on a worldwide scale. It would be disastrous for the species to continue to increase our human numbers madly until such innate devices take over. It is a test of the validity of sapiens as a species epithet."
"Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth and will adjust the growth rate to levels which will permit a decent standard of living for all mankind. If man is wise enough to make this decision and if all nations abandon their idolatry of Ares, Mars, and Thor, then Mankind itself should be the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize which is “to be awarded to the person who has done most to promote brotherhood among the nations'”.
Great piece. A lot of these ideas are the basis for Kim Stanley Robinson's brilliant book The Ministry for the Future, which is definitely worth a read for anyone thinking through some of the policy implications.
Identifying what level of material throughput achieves both "prosperity" and ecological sustainability is no easy task. I'd like to suggest a minimum to start with, and if we find there is more ecological space to share, we can deal with that then. There is a vast literature on universal basic needs, needs which transcend both space (culture) and time; these are needs that are intrinsic to humans as social animals. The involve both material needs (food, water, shelter, some form of health care, etc) and non-material needs (identity, leisure, role in community, voice in community). What is interesting about this list is that all the material needs are satiable - there is a limit to how much material throughput is needed to satisfy them (altho excess is always possible). And the non-material needs are ones that research has found lead to the highest levels of life satisfaction (and they also have a low ecological footprint). With the appropriate population size, we can satisfy our universal basic needs without trashing the planet. But attaining such a state requires a very different mind set regarding what "prosperity" entails. But something to work for - what degrowth is all about.
Creating and reiterating a clear definition of what real prosperity is within the ecological and social contexts is the job. Not finger wagging. Gandhi said, for example, 'health is true wealth ' He also equated selt-rule and practical life skills as real security. I'm not here to say Gandhi was perfect, I know that's controversial, but I do think he was successful at creating a definition for Indians that pointed to ways that were practical towards health as well as resisting from the British empire. An economist from England that was fond of Gandhi created a meme of sorts- 'small is beautiful.' As an academic he could explain this pithy slogan in-depth and help to historically contextualize it. I see this is a really important part of helping people snap out of the lie of endless growth and wealth as thriving.
We'll either choose stability willingly or it will be forced upon us by Mother Nature and Father Time working together. I was fortunate to be working in Family Planning in East Asia when Norman Borlaug, the Father of the Green Revolution, won the Nobel Prize in 1970. At the end of his very long acceptance speech he said..."The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only."
"Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the “Population Monster”... By the time of Christ, world population had probably reached 250 million. But between then and now, population has grown to 3.5 billion. Growth has been especially fast since the advent of modern medicine. If it continues to increase at the estimated present rate of two percent a year, the world population will reach 6.5 billion by the year 2000. Currently, with each second, or tick of the clock, about 2.2 additional people are added to the world population. The rhythm of increase will accelerate to 2.7, 3.3, and 4.0 for each tick of the clock by 1980, 1990, and 2000, respectively, unless man becomes more realistic and preoccupied about this impending doom. The ticktock of the clock will continually grow louder and more menacing each decade. Where will it all end?"
"Malthus signaled the danger a century and a half ago. But he emphasized principally the danger that population would increase faster than food supplies. In his time he could not foresee the tremendous increase in man’s food production potential. Nor could he have foreseen the disturbing and destructive physical and mental consequences of the grotesque concentration of human beings into the poisoned and clangorous environment of pathologically hypertrophied megalopoles. Can human beings endure the strain? Abnormal stresses and strains tend to accentuate man’s animal instincts and provoke irrational and socially disruptive behavior among the less stable individuals in the maddening crowd."
"We must recognize the fact that adequate food is only the first requisite for life. For a decent and humane life we must also provide an opportunity for good education, remunerative employment, comfortable housing, good clothing, and effective and compassionate medical care. Unless we can do this, man may degenerate sooner from environmental diseases than from hunger."
"And yet, I am optimistic for the future of mankind, for in all biological populations there are innate devices to adjust population growth to the carrying capacity of the environment. Undoubtedly, some such device exists in man, presumably Homo sapiens, but so far it has not asserted itself to bring into balance population growth and the carrying capacity of the environment on a worldwide scale. It would be disastrous for the species to continue to increase our human numbers madly until such innate devices take over. It is a test of the validity of sapiens as a species epithet."
"Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth and will adjust the growth rate to levels which will permit a decent standard of living for all mankind. If man is wise enough to make this decision and if all nations abandon their idolatry of Ares, Mars, and Thor, then Mankind itself should be the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize which is “to be awarded to the person who has done most to promote brotherhood among the nations'”.
For the full text please see - https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1970/borlaug/lecture/
Great piece. A lot of these ideas are the basis for Kim Stanley Robinson's brilliant book The Ministry for the Future, which is definitely worth a read for anyone thinking through some of the policy implications.
Identifying what level of material throughput achieves both "prosperity" and ecological sustainability is no easy task. I'd like to suggest a minimum to start with, and if we find there is more ecological space to share, we can deal with that then. There is a vast literature on universal basic needs, needs which transcend both space (culture) and time; these are needs that are intrinsic to humans as social animals. The involve both material needs (food, water, shelter, some form of health care, etc) and non-material needs (identity, leisure, role in community, voice in community). What is interesting about this list is that all the material needs are satiable - there is a limit to how much material throughput is needed to satisfy them (altho excess is always possible). And the non-material needs are ones that research has found lead to the highest levels of life satisfaction (and they also have a low ecological footprint). With the appropriate population size, we can satisfy our universal basic needs without trashing the planet. But attaining such a state requires a very different mind set regarding what "prosperity" entails. But something to work for - what degrowth is all about.
Creating and reiterating a clear definition of what real prosperity is within the ecological and social contexts is the job. Not finger wagging. Gandhi said, for example, 'health is true wealth ' He also equated selt-rule and practical life skills as real security. I'm not here to say Gandhi was perfect, I know that's controversial, but I do think he was successful at creating a definition for Indians that pointed to ways that were practical towards health as well as resisting from the British empire. An economist from England that was fond of Gandhi created a meme of sorts- 'small is beautiful.' As an academic he could explain this pithy slogan in-depth and help to historically contextualize it. I see this is a really important part of helping people snap out of the lie of endless growth and wealth as thriving.
Nice tribute to EF Schumacher!
💯Matt