Incompatibility of ‘sustainable’ and ‘growth’
In 1960, Article 1 of the Convention of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) included the specific aim of achieving “the highest sustainable economic growth”. Only in subsequent decades did enlightenment filter through to some corporate and political mind-sets, which acknowledged the mutual incompatibility of “sustainable” and “growth”. Ultimately we all need to believe that bringing together the understanding, intelligence, compassion, and concern for one’s descendants, that nearly every human being is capable of demonstrating, will ultimately lead to a vision of sustainability as the only viable future.
The starting point for this discourse is that humanity is taking from Earth more than it can regenerate and is producing more waste than it can assimilate. Therefore we have to change our behaviour to bring our demands on the planetary ecosystem in line with its limits. In this respect we have to decide to go either for a culture of harmony, based on sharing public goods, or for a culture of continuing discord based on unequal distribution of individual wealth. To help us make this choice a new body of knowledge linking culture with ecology is needed. It is required to promote a process of citizens’ involvement in transition from a technological culture to an ecological one based on renewable energy. The political dimension of cultural ecology includes some bold ideas such as an equal education budget for every citizen, to be invested as they choose. But it mostly rests on old ideas of participatory governance, progressive taxation, and income guarantees, underpinned by a culture of sharing ecological resources equality within and between countries.
The Bassey model
Whilst contending that societies need to move from economic growth to cultural growth, Michael Bassey, in his book “Convivial Policies for the Inevitable; (2012)” acknowledges that such a massive shift in day to day living will be a very tall order, whether amongst world leaders or the burgeoning millions of individuals aspiring to greater material wealth. We get an inkling of how difficult such a global change would be in the isolationist responses of countries to protect their monetary wealth in response to the corona virus pandemic (COVID-19; 2020).
In reaching a condition of cultural growth we need to appreciate and value what we have. We need to create things without damaging our planet, and learn how to live convivially. Bassey warns we may be forced to start relating to each other in long-forgotten ways, because there is no alternative. What is meant by “convivial” in this context? Bassey believes it is a “way of living, through which people gain quality of life and enjoy happiness by striving to be in harmony with themselves, and with their social, cultural and natural environments”. Taking the UK economy as a starting point, he suggests there should be a minimum living wage, maximum take-home pay, and acceptance that as unemployment is inevitable, our society should be re-orientated so that unpaid work at home or in the community is recognised for its intrinsic value through support via a “universal citizen’s income”.
Those people inextricably bound up in the values and validations of typical growth- orientated, oil-based economies are characterised by Bassey as “wealthists”, whose pursuit of affluence brings about an “acne of over-consumption”. Wealthist politicians rise and fall on their ability to grow the GDP. It doesn’t matter what it takes, whether it’s ripping up environmental protections, gutting labour laws, or fracking for cheap oil: if you achieve growth, you win. Citizens of green, no-growth economies are dubbed “convivialists”. Prosperity for convivialists consists in their ability to flourish as human beings within the ecological limits of a finite planet. This was the view of the UK Sustainable Development Commission as far back as 2009 when it promoted “Prosperity Without Growth”. The challenge for our society now is to create the conditions under which this is possible”. In response to global environmental degradation and human poverty we need to learn how to create sustainable societies which do not depend for their survival on a wealthist worldview. Indeed, the convivial discourse takes a quite different perspective. While the poorer countries need to sustain development, ie economic growth, in order to achieve convivial joy for their peoples, the richer countries need to develop stable economies. i.e. zero growth, in order to achieve harmony with the environment. In particular, Bassey argues that convivial education is the foundation for the four pillars of sustainability: namely ‘social justice’, ‘environmental responsibility’, ‘economic viability’ and ‘cultural development’. Further, he suggests that adult education rather than schooling needs to be the present focus and that a powerful stimulus to this would be non-mandatory referenda posing significant, if difficult, questions arising from adopting the four pillars of sustainability.
In the convivial discourse, education is the route into conviviality and it happens within the family, community and workplace as well as in schools, colleges and universities. The educational goal is learning to live a convivial life in terms of coming to understand oneself, other people, one’s natural environment and one’s cultural world and growing in harmony with these. Through this way of living one learns a measure of self-sufficiency. It is a life-long and holistic process embracing both formal and informal learning.
From the convivial perspective of creating cultural harmony, ultimately it must be the case that the economy of every country and the joyfulness of its people will depend primarily on what they make of their own territory. It will depend on soil, on climate, on the technology they use in relation to soil and climate, on how they conserve the land, and on how they organise their affairs to provide social justice and cultural development for all. Bassey believes that in the past all communities were like this and often they suffered extreme privitation: but a modern sustainable society would not be primitive. Creating it puts the clock forward, not back. Drawing on scientific and technological developments within a steady state economy there would be convivial work opportunities for all to achieve a high quality of life and non monetary prosperity. To develop a democratic culture of harmony requires creative interaction between education and society. Ideas of progress need to be unshackled from the creation of wealth. Political courage is needed to stand firm against the critics who lack the imagination to see it as ultimately being the only way for succeeding generations throughout the world to enjoy satisfying and high quality lives.
The Piketty model
Thomas Piketty in his book ‘Capital and Ideology (2020)’ retells a global history with a scathing critique of contemporary politics and a bold proposal for a new and fairer economic system. Piketty challenges us to revolutionize how we think about politics, ideology, and history and galvanize a global debate about inequality. He exposes the ideas that have sustained inequality for the past millennium, reveals why the shallow politics of right and left are failing us today, and outlines the structure of a fairer economic system.
Piketty argues for a new “participatory” socialism, a system founded on an ideology of equality, the production of public goods, and education for the democratic sharing of knowledge and power. Our economy, he observes, is not a natural fact. Markets, profits, and capital are all historical constructs that depend on past choices. Piketty explores the material and ideological interactions of conflicting social groups that have given us slavery, serfdom, colonialism, communism, and hypercapitalism, shaping the lives of billions. He concludes that the great driver of human progress over the centuries has been the struggle for equality and education and not, as often argued, the assertion of property rights or the pursuit of social stability. He says the new era of extreme inequality that has derailed that progress since the 1980s, is partly a reaction against communism, but it is also the fruit of ignorance, intellectual specialization, and our drift toward the dead-end politics of national identity.
Once we understand this, we can begin to envision a more balanced approach to economics politics and environment. Here, Piketty argues for a new “participatory” socialism, a system founded on an ideology of equality, social property, education, and the sharing of knowledge and power. His standpoint is simply a moral one: inequality is illegitimate, and therefore requires ideologies in order to be justified and moderated.
“All history shows that the search for a distribution of wealth acceptable to the majority of people is a recurrent theme in all periods and all cultures”.
Piketty’s core political and methodological belief is in the emancipatory power of public data: that when people are given sufficient evidence about the structures of society, they will insist on greater equality until they are granted it. However, Western democracies are currently dominated by two rival elites, reflected in many two-party electoral systems: a financial elite (or “merchant right”) that favours open markets, and an educational elite (or “Brahmin left”) that stands for cultural diversity, but has lost faith in progressive taxation as a basis for social justice. With these as the principal democratic options, nativist parties prosper, opposing educational and economic inequality, but only on the basis of tighter national borders. Pikettty’s message is that there is a vacancy for parties willing to defend internationalism and redistribution simultaneously. His vision is of future generations sharing the public good of a bountiful Earth equitably with maximum opportunities for joyful lives
QUESTIONING OUR PLANETARY FUTURE
Michael Bassey has suggested that a stimulus to wide-spread learning about how to develop a post growth culture would be if the government held a referendum on the issues involved. Instead of an opinion poll based on a sample of perhaps a thousand people, suppose that all adults are expected to cast votes expressing their views in a national ballot along the same lines as a general election. The kind of questions that might be asked are displayed below.
Suppose that the ballot paper included the area (not the local) postal code. This would mean that local authorities and the people themselves became aware of what each area thought. Suppose that such a referendum was seen as not binding a government (ie non-mandatory) but as indicating a direction that the community expects its policies to take. And suppose that such a referendum was repeated every three years – so that people would have the chance to rethink their position and continue the debate.
Asking good questions is central to learning and sometimes can be more important than getting the answers, particularly when the questions encourage people to think critically.
The following questionnaire is an example to guide the production of a democratic educational scaffold for lifelong learning about the links between ecology and culture. In particular it probes respondents’ opinions about the limits to Earth’s carrying capacity; the limits to economic growth; the limits to waste emissions; the need for a new relationship between culture and ecosystems and an education system for living sustainably.
An interactive version of the questionnaire produced by International Classrooms On LIne (ICOL) is available HERE.
As followers of this blog ICOL invites you to fill in the interactive questionnaire that will help ICOL to plan an education pathway for sustainability.
The results will be presented at www.blog.culturalecology.info.
You are asked to select one of the answers to each question to indicate the response that is nearest to your present opinion. If none reflects your opinion, or if you feel you know too little about it, use the response ‘Cannot answer this question’. Many people will say, ‘I can’t answer these questions’. Not knowing is the beginning of the path to wisdom. You may simply start to realise that in a strong democracy each and every one of us has a part to play in determining what the future will look like. This is more than enough.
The questionnaire will take 10-15 minutes to fill in and may stimulate you to think differently about the topic.
1 Limits to Earth’s carrying capacity
Are we facing limits to Earth’s carrying capacity for human life?
(a) No because we can engineer our environments more productively to serve human needs as we have done in the past
(b) No because affluence and modernisation is bringing falling fertility rates so reducing human demands on the environment
(c) Yes because we have already exceeded key planetary boundaries, with visible consequences of deforestation, biodiversity collapse, resource wars and climate change.
(d) Cannot answer this question.
Is it time for a post-growth economy?
(a) No because economists and politicians tell us that we need growth in order to boost people out of poverty.
(b) No because if the economy doesn’t keep expanding by at least 2% or 3 % a year in developed countries, it collapses into crisis.
(c) Yes because we can choose to replace GDP with more holistic measures, like the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)
(d) Cannot answer this question.
2 Limits to economic growth
Are there limits to economic growth?
(a) No, because it is unlikely that the limits to economic growth will ever be reached.
(b) Yes because economic growth will eventually cease but there is no need to take action now.
(c) Yes because economic growth cannot be maintained within Earth’s limits..
(d) Cannot answer this question.
How can malnutrition and starvation be eliminated across the world?
(a) By free trade which ensures economic growth for all countries, rich and so lifts the poor out of poverty.
(b) By rich countries providing aid and intermediate technology which ensures that people can maintain themselves from the resources of their own territory.
(c) By global food aid, whereby food is grown in donor countries for distribution or sale abroad.
(d) Cannot answer this question.
How serious (life threatening) are the changes in the global environment that are being made by humankind?
(a) Very serious for us and needing urgent action now.
(b) Quite serious for us and needing action in the foreseeable future.
(c) Not serious for us in the foreseeable future and not requiring action
(d) Cannot answer this question
3 Limits to waste emissions
What is the most important action to bring consumption in line with Earth’s ecological productivity?
(a) Consume less goods and services
(b) Plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
(c) Increase the efficiency of production of goods and services
(d) Cannot answer this question
Which of the following themes is most important when you buy things?
(a) It has to be up to date
(b) It has to have a long lifespan
(c) It has to be part of a circular economy where all wastes and discards are recycled.
(d) Cannot answer this question
4 Need for a new relationship between culture and ecology
What is the best interpretation of sustainable development?
(a) Sustaining economic growth year by year, while trying to alleviate poverty and protect the environment.
(b) Aiming for no economic growth in order to create sustainable societies that alleviate poverty and protect the environment.
(c) Aiming for a steady state economy with international policies of trade and aid that promote the sharing of Earth’s resources equitably
(d) Cannot answer this question.
What would be an appropriate definition of prosperity in a steady state economy?
(a) An appropriate definition of prosperity would be the hope that world leaders would address global challenges related to poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice.
(b) An appropriate definition of prosperity would be the commitment of people to voluntary altruistic actions
(c) An appropriate definition of prosperity would be the year on year accumulation of monetary capital
(d) Cannot answer this question
Where survival is reasonably assured and basic needs are met, what kind of culture will give the better quality and meaning to individuals’ lives?
(a) A culture of wealth creation will give the better quality of life
(b) A culture of harmony through sharing will give the better quality of life.
(c) A culture of creativity as an enabler of economic development will give the better quality of life
(d) Cannot answer this question
5 Need for a new education system
Should we educate young and adult people in order that they learn of the socio-ecological predicaments of the Earth?
(a) Yes.Involve young people in designing and co-producing educational materials
(b) No. Adult education should focus on learning the skills needed to train for the new jobs that economic growth demands.
(c) Yes. Train educators as facilitators to help learners assemble a personal body of knowledge to live sustainably
(d) Cannot answer this question.
What kind of pedagogy is needed to cope with the socio-ecological predicaments of Earth?
(a) One that produces specialists because the predicaments of Earth require technical fixes.
(b) One that produces generalists because the predicaments of Earth require cross disciplinary fixes.
(c) One that produces humanists because the predicaments of Earth require a different kind of thinking from that which we used to create them
(d) Cannot answer this question