Yves is here. We point out from time to time that the only possible way to prevent the most catastrophic climate consequences is thorough protection, such as drastically reducing energy consumption and related resource development. Whenever we put forward this idea, we will get this response: “We can’t, because…” If we don’t do this, it means that the standard of living of the grassland home will be the best we can expect within a few generations. OK. When a complex society, especially a society that relies heavily on short-term inputs such as computer chips, begins to disintegrate, the downhill slope will be steep.

Of course, the opponents have a view that the possible concept is increasingly being influenced by mass media and social media. These media pay through advertising. This is all about whipping consumption, which needs to be reduced. The fallacy is that GDP is a measure of the quality of life, which of course is not very correct in the United States. From the 1950s to the 1970s, except for the most expensive cities, a single man could work on blue-collar wages and be self-sufficient. The work week is shorter, the job is more stable, and most people have deeper social connections. Stability and personal networks not only have great positive implications for mental health; they increase life expectancy.

I can continue, but you see: more goods and more services do not necessarily improve the quality of life, and it is not difficult to prove that the most important elements have degraded. So doing less and slower will have a lot of benefits…It is not the official hope that you have this idea.

Author: Dr. Peter Sutoris, an environmental anthropologist at University College London, author of “Vision for Development” (Oxford University Press) and the forthcoming “Education for the Anthropocene” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press).Understand his research www.petersutoris.com And on Twitter: @PSutoris.Originally published on dark

The global dialogue on climate change revolves around a single, misleading idea: we can replace carbon-intensive technologies with cleaner technologies and achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions without fundamentally changing our economy. The goal. In other words, we can achieve and maintain indefinitely, Green growth.

But one Competing narrative arguments Unlimited growth on a finite planet is impossible. Even the so-called green technology will perpetuate the exploitation of natural resources and the destruction of the natural environment. Even if these technologies help us to mitigate climate change to a certain extent, they may be counterproductive. For example, Destroy biodiversityIn this narrative, the underlying problem is not what we call technological cleanliness, but our compulsion to maintain economic growth.

Supporters of the second view believe that in order to protect the planet, we must reduce the consumption of resources. This strategy is called Degenerate. This method requires us to shrink part of the economy and Move away From indicators such as gross domestic product as indicators of economic health.

Many scientists, politicians and critics have devalued Unrealistic to growAnd asserted that there is simply not enough political will to pursue it. They say that we must act on the climate now, and we must act within the parameters of the current economic system. There is no time for revolution.

This arguably defeatist view is partly the result of a misunderstanding of what degrowth really represents. As some commentators have suggested, degradation does not mean a sharp decline in living standards, nor does it mean that the poor will become poorer.This is because de-growth requires not only the reduction of resource extraction, but also the distribution of these resources more fair. Did not grow meaning is All sectors of the economy will shrink; sectors that are less dependent on resource extraction, such as education and healthcare, can continue to expand.

But more importantly, de-growth is often only portrayed as an economic concept, but in fact it is also a cultural concept. The degraded culture requires us to regard ourselves as stewards of the earth. It prompts us to realize that our relationship with the natural environment is a two-way road-if we want nature to take care of us, we must take care of nature.It requires us to respect our Planetary limit, Looking for other species, and realizing that our own destiny is closely related to the health of the ecosystem in which we live.

A degraded culture Intergenerational justice, And respect the rights of future residents of the world.

What does society need to accept growth as a new cultural paradigm?

We can start by questioning the basic ideologies that have supported our economic system for decades, including Extractionism, The earth is an idea we can develop, and Speciesism, The idea that humans are morally superior to all other species has contributed to the general belief that non-human species are essentially disposable. At the same time, we must guard against age discrimination, which is the idea that adults know best. Children’s imagination of alternative worlds and the future is essential to creating cultural shifts. Why not start publishing children’s works and drawings in the review pages of major newspapers?

The key step is for the gatekeepers of our culture — curators, editors, artists, influencers — to diversify the conversation about climate solutions, beyond clean technology and decarbonization. Especially journalists, editors and commentators, they have tremendous power in setting the cultural agenda, especially in the more democratic countries in the world. It’s time for them to use it.

For example, it is worth remembering that our current global unlimited growth system did not appear by accident.This is partly a product of cultural power after World War II: a revolution advertise, Media reports emphasize the benefits of capitalism and globalization, as well as drumming Hollywood movie Describe material wealth as a symbol of success.

Similar forces can be mobilized to promote the transformation of culture to degradation.

Take art and entertainment as an example. The acclaimed Indian novelist Amitav Ghosh (Amitav Ghosh) in his 2016 book “Chaos“Climate change obviously does not appear in fiction. However, today, climate and environment are still mainly in the non-fiction realm. With some notable exceptions-such as Maya Lund’s”The history of bees“——The best-selling novels and blockbusters in recent years have hardly involved our relationship with nature.

Education is another space for shaping culture. Many education systems in the world are currently focused on cultivating productive workers who can keep the economy operating with unlimited growth. Even in so-called elite educational institutions, critical thinking is often the same as solving problems to achieve unlimited growth. Our education system—currently focusing on STEM subjects and imparting the technical skills needed by corporate employers—must place more emphasis on creativity, imagination, and political participation. Before realizing them, we need to be able to imagine an alternative future, and growth is no exception.

When I talk about degraded culture, one objection I often hear is that cultural change takes time, and we have no time for climate change. However, history tells us that rapid cultural and political changes are possible. Just consider the impact of social movements, for example#Me too Or the life problems of blacks that appear within months or even weeks. Skeptics may think that the implementation of the de-growth policy from the upper level is unlikely to work, but this does not mean that de-growth is impossible-it just means that the demand needs to come from the bottom.

However, is it realistic to expect a sufficient number of people to support growth? After all, our mainstream economic theory claims that when people act for their own benefit, their behavior is rational. Acting for our self-interest usually means accumulating wealth, thereby driving unlimited growth.

However, when we witness the environmental destruction with our own eyes, our hearts will be broken, or if we witness the feeding conditions of livestock, we are more likely to give up meat, which is no coincidence. Appreciation of natural beauty, sympathy for other creatures, and concern for the fate of future generations of mankind are as deep-rooted as self-interest, even if our infinitely growing culture makes us to some extent blind to these characteristics.

In the final analysis, degradation is inevitable. We either choose this path voluntarily, or we are forced to walk this path violently and uncontrollably because of environmental disasters. If we want to prevent the pain and tragedies that accompany such drastic changes, we must create a degraded culture. Wherever the cultural wind blows, the political wind will follow.