Technology is Not the Answer – Part Two

As promised, part two of this tripartite blog series will explore some ideas which offer alternatives to the paradigm of infinite growth.

If you missed part one, you can find it here: https://britanniasailingtrust.org/technology-is-not-the-answer-part-one/

The rules of the growth game are simple: if the annual GDP is greater than that of the preceding year, then we have growth. If it is less, then we have recession. Recession, as everyone knows, has negative implications – increased unemployment, poverty, reductions in income and loss of asset value, to name a few.

GDP is considered the de facto means by which nations measure their development and progress. When divided by population, it is also used to compare the standard of living between those nations. It dictates that in order to experience success, we must make and consume more resources, spend more money and accumulate more stuff each year, every year, forever.

But, of course, this system has a fatal flaw:

A world of finite resources cannot sustain infinite growth.

We cannot produce something from nothing.

Realistically, GDP is not a good measure of our success as a species or a society – nor is infinite growth a sensible goal. While global GDP has grown by more than 5000% since the 1960s, inequality, poverty and environmental problems have always grown in step with it.

The tragedy is that most people are acutely aware of these problems, but our society’s governing philosophy of ‘growth at all costs’ makes it very hard to do anything about them – reducing consumption levels is simply not in the interests of Progress.

Limits to Growth

1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.

2. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

3. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.

4. If the world’s people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.

At the time of its publication, the work was poorly received for the inconceivable proposition that we must find alternatives to growth. However, in recent years it has come to be considered a pioneering study. The 1972 computer model’s predictions have remained closely aligned with real world outcomes over the last three decades. Subsequent updates, improving the model’s inputs with more accurate data and a deeper understanding of matters such as climate change, have only made the outlook more grim.

We are already experiencing some of the effects of unchecked resource demand, as predicted by The Limits to Growth. Ecosystems are showing signs of extreme stress and society is beginning to feel the effects of excessive consumption.

• Only 36% of the world’s tropical rainforest now remains intact (and 46% of what is left is in a degraded state). The Amazon is on track for irreversible destruction by 2064.
• The U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity recently concluded that about 150 species are being driven to extinction every day – averaging 3 per hour.
• In 2020, BP’s Energy Outlook announced peak oil had been reached, but peak ‘conventional’ oil (land and offshore deposits extracted by standard techniques) was reached in 2006, according to the The International Energy Agency. The ‘unconventional’ oils on which we are now coming to depend, such as shale and oil sands, are far more difficult to access and extract, and have a far lower energy yield, meaning that we are rapidly approaching an energy crisis. Renewables, as discussed in part one, cannot realistically be expected to take the place of fossil fuels in entirety.

• The human population has increased 4547% since the industrial revolution and 157900% since we invented agriculture. The size of the planet remains the same while our demands upon it are growing exponentially.

At the end of the day, perpetual growth is diametrically opposed to sustainability. Sustainability, in societal terms, means existing at a constant, curated complexity level that neither increases nor declines. It means a world where consumption is carefully balanced against the speed at which resources can regenerate. It does not mean finding more efficient ways to satisfy an ever increasing demand – though this is often how it is used in rhetoric!

“Technological or political progress leading to an increase in the efficiency with which a resource is used, increases the rate of consumption of that resource.”

– Jevon’s Paradox

Market-based solutions to the problem of over-consumption – such as emissions trading and carbon offsets – are merely designed to perpetuate ‘business as usual’ for as long as possible. In the long run – as emphasised by Limits to Growth – the sooner we abandon ‘business as usual’, the better off we will be. The sooner we stop obsessing over growth and find new standards by which to measure our success, the less painful the transition will be; for whether we initiate it ourselves or whether environmental destruction and the systemic degradation of human lives set us on a course for collapse, change will inevitably come. It is our choice whether we will make it easy or hard.

What, then, is the smoother path? What is the alternative to growth? What other states exist beyond growth, stagnation and recession?

Growth vs. Degrowth

“At its most basic level, Degrowth simply means abolishing economic growth as the primary aim for society.”

– Francesca Willow, Degrowth Economics Explained & What It Means For Environmental Justice

A ‘degrown’ society would instead prioritise human and environmental wellbeing over profit.

Like natural ecosystems, a degrown society would exist within its ecological means. This would mean downscaling production and consumption – so that we produce no more than we actually require, and do so in a sustainable way. As well as enhancing ecological conditions across the planet, this would also have the effect of increasing human well-being, since majority happiness would replace minority profit as society’s main goal.

“[It] is an idea that critiques the global capitalist system which pursues growth at all costs, causing human exploitation and environmental destruction. [Degrowth instead] advocates for societies that prioritize social and ecological well-being instead of corporate profits, over-production and excess consumption.” – Degrowth

A degrown society does not advocate for recession, nor does it denote ‘communism’ or any other political ideology. It exists independently of these ideas – a different path altogether.

“The main argument is that, while growth can be helpful up to a certain point, continued unending growth eventually leads to rampant inequality, bad physical and mental health, long hours, pollution and congestion. Even as GDP increases, welfare indicators don’t change, because wellbeing doesn’t improve once a person’s basic material needs are met.” – Francesca Willow, Degrowth Economics Explained & What It Means For Environmental Justice

GDP vs. GNH

While no country has yet adopted a philosophy of true degrowth, one country – Bhutan – has shunned GDP in favour of GNH (Gross National Happiness). This has guided its government and policy-making since 1972.

“Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product”– King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, 4th King of Bhutan

Instead of using growth as its guide, GNH measures nine domains of the human condition:

• Psychological well-being
• Health
• Time use
• Education
• Cultural diversity
• Resilience
• Good governance
• Community vitality
• Ecological diversity and resilience
• Living standards

Its guiding aims are:

1. Sustainable and equitable socio-economic development;
2. Environmental conservation;
3. Preservation and promotion of culture; and
4. Good governance.

This philosophy has been a great success story for Bhutan. In 1990, Bhutan had similar levels of poverty to other South Asian countries: more than 50% of the population lived in a state of scarcity. By 2010, Bhutan had reduced its rate of poverty to just 4%, while poverty for South Asia, on the whole, had only been reduced to 30%. https://borgenproject.org/bhutans-gross-national-happiness/

It is a good example of a radical change of direction – effected without force or violence – benefitting a society simply by shunning profit as the ultimate goal.

Circular Economy

The idea of Degrowth ties in closely with the ‘circular economy’ which advocates for an economic ‘steady-state’.

It is intended to mimic a natural ecosystem, where nothing is wasted and all materials are eventually returned to the system and recycled into another form.

By using natural materials instead of plastics and synthetics, we could tie our industries into the ecosystem, borrowing and returning resources in a way that benefits nature as well as society. By making products repairable rather than replaceable, objects would hold their value and utility for as long as possible, reducing the need to manufacture.

Renewable energy would be important in a circular economy – though this would not necessarily mean high-tech solutions, which are unsustainable in the long run, as discussed in part one. Water and wind mills, animal and man powered contraptions, biomass, biofuels and of course sailing vessels are all good examples of low-tech and truly sustainable renewable energy.

Low Tech Magazine is a leading voice in this matter and offers a fascinating library of low-tech ideas, ranging from the novel to the tried-and-true, as well as well researched critiques of high-tech ‘solutions’: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/tag/renewable-energy.html

The Ellen MacArthur foundation is dedicated to educating people about the Circular Economy and researching ways to implement it in the real world: https://archive.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/what-is-the-circular-economy

Conclusion

If we were to reconfigure society around these ideas, allowing some years for a smooth transition, we could potentially stave off – even reverse – the mounting consequences of our excessive consumption levels. We could work to reverse environmental destruction and focus on creating equitable societies that prioritise community and wellbeing over the accumulation of wealth. We could also save ourselves a lot of suffering down the road.

As it stands, nations are not likely to abandon GDP and growth for as long as it remains profitable for the influential few. The longer we ride this train, the less likely it is that we will get off of it unscathed – for it’s hurtling down a dangerous track. Rather than leading to utopia of endlessly increasing prosperity, a philosophy of infinite growth leads only to a rapidly-approaching dead-end; the way is fraught with ever worsening ecological catastrophes and ever-diminishing quality of life for an ever-increasing population. It can only end in total derailment as, one by one, critical resources are exhausted, technological solutions do not materialise or work as promised, and the degradation of climate and environment begin disrupt planteary processes essential to life as we know it.

The only sustainable model is one which rejects the idea of infinite growth and instead diverts our energies into maintaining an equilibrium that allows mankind to live within his means.

The final part of this series, coming in January 2022, will explore the application of low-tech solutions to modern problems – exploring the ideas of Convivial Tools and Appropriate Technologies.