Towards a New Economy and a New Politics -- by Gus Speth

Gus Speth, retired dean of environmental studies at Yale, is a founder of the Natural Resources Defence Council, World Resources Institute, and author including the recent Bridge at the End of the World (2008). His article is reprinted from Robert Costanza's Solutions Journal 28 May 2010; it was originally a 2010 lecture (recorded on video) to the The New Green Economy conference of the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE).

Dawn of a new era -- by Richard Morin

If America’s present system of political economy were performing well, there would be little need to question it or seek fundamental change. But that is not the case. Asked what the key goals of economic life should be, many would reply, “to enhance social well-being while sustaining democratic prospects and environmental quality.” Judged by this standard, today’s political economy is failing. It is a failure that reaches many spheres of national life—economic, social, political, and environmental. Indeed, America can be said to be in crisis in each of these four areas.^{1, 2}

The economic crisis of the Great Recession brought on by Wall Street financial excesses has stripped tens of millions of middle class Americans of their jobs, homes, and retirement assets and plunged many into poverty and despair.

A social crisis of extreme and growing inequality has been unraveling America’s social fabric for several decades. A tiny minority has experienced soaring incomes and accumulated grand fortunes, while wages for working people have stagnated despite rising productivity gains and poverty has risen to a near 30-year high. Social mobility has declined, record numbers of people lack health insurance, schools are failing, prison populations are swelling, employment security is a thing of the past, and American workers put in more hours than workers in other high-income countries.³

An environmental crisis, driven by excessive human consumption and waste and a spate of terrible technologies, is disrupting Earth’s climate, reducing Earth’s capacity to support life, and creating large-scale human displacement that further fuels social breakdown.
And a political crisis is reflected in governmental paralysis and a democracy that is weak, shallow, and corrupted—the best democracy that money can buy.^4-7

The case for fundamental change is underscored especially by the urgency of environmental conditions.¹ Here is one measure of that problem: All that human societies have to do to destroy the planet’s climate and biota and leave a ruined world to future generations is to keep doing exactly what is being done today, with no growth in the human population or the world economy. Just continue to release greenhouse gases at current rates, just continue to impoverish ecosystems and release toxic chemicals at current rates, and the world in the latter part of this century won’t be fit to live in. But, of course, human activities are not holding at current levels—they are accelerating dramatically. It took all of history to build the $7 trillion world economy of 1950; recently, economic activity has grown by that amount every decade. At typical rates of growth, the world economy will now double in size in less than 20 years. We are thus facing the possibility of an enormous increase in environmental deterioration, just when we need to move strongly in the opposite direction.

Accelerating environmental deterioration is most starkly revealed in the global trends—trends in which the U.S. economy and U.S. politics are deeply complicit. About half the world’s wetlands and a third of the mangroves are gone. An estimated 90 percent of the large predatory fish are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity. Twenty percent of the corals are gone, and another 20 percent severely threatened. Half the world’s temperate and tropical forests are gone. The rate of deforestation in the tropics continues at about one acre per second. Species are disappearing at rates about 1,000 times faster than normal. The planet has not seen such a spasm of extinction in 65 million years, since the dinosaurs disappeared. Over half the agricultural land in drier regions suffers from some degree of deterioration and desertification. Persistent toxic chemicals can now be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us.

Human impacts are now large relative to natural systems. The Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer was severely depleted before the change was discovered. Most importantly, human activities have pushed up atmospheric carbon dioxide by more than a third and increased other greenhouse gases as well, with the result that we have started, in earnest, the dangerous process of warming the planet and disrupting the climate. Everywhere, Earth’s ice fields are melting. Industrial processes are fixing nitrogen, making it biologically active, at the same rate that nature is; one consequence is the development of hundreds of dead zones in the oceans due to over-fertilization. Each year, human actions already consume or destroy about 40 percent of nature’s photosynthetic output, leaving too little for other species.

Freshwater withdrawals doubled globally between 1960 and 2000 and now represent over half of accessible runoff. The Colorado, Yellow, Ganges, and Nile Rivers, among others, no longer reach the oceans in the dry season.

planetary boundaries: Tällberg Foundation

To seek something new and better, a good place to begin is to ask why today’s system of political economy is failing so broadly. Environmentally, the answer is that key features of the system work together to produce a reality that is highly destructive. An unquestioning society-wide commitment to economic growth at almost any cost; powerful corporate interests whose overriding objective is to grow by generating profit, including profit from avoiding the environmental costs they create and from replicating technologies designed with little regard for the environment; markets that systematically fail to recognize environmental costs unless corrected by government; government that is subservient to corporate interests and the growth imperative; rampant consumerism spurred by an addiction to novelty and by sophisticated advertising; economic activity now so large in scale that its impacts alter the fundamental biophysical operations of the planet—all combine to deliver an ever-growing world economy that is undermining the ability of the planet to sustain life.¹

This environmental reality is linked powerfully with growing social inequality and the erosion of democratic governance and popular control. Only a powerful democratic reality can guide and regulate the economy for environmental and social ends, and only a society that is cohesive and fair is likely to rise fully to shared challenges like the environment. Unfortunately, Americans today live and work in a system of political economy that cares profoundly about profits and growth and that cares about society and the natural world mainly to the extent it is required to do so. It is thus up to us as citizens to inject values of fairness, solidarity, and sustainability into this system, and government is the primary vehicle we have for accomplishing this. But typically, we fail at this assignment because our politics is too enfeebled and government is excessively under the thumb of powerful corporations and concentrations of great wealth. Consider the similarity between the recent financial collapse and the ongoing environmental deterioration. Both result from a system in which those with economic power are propelled, and not restrained by government, to take dangerous risks for the sake of great profit.

The prioritization of economic growth and economic values is at the root of the systemic failures and resulting crises America is now experiencing. Today, the reigning policy orientation holds that the path to greater well-being is to grow and expand the economy. Productivity, wages, profits, the stock market, employment, and consumption must all go up. This growth imperative trumps all else. It can undermine families, jobs, communities, the environment, and a sense of place and continuity because it is confidently asserted and widely believed that growth is worth the price that must be paid for it. Growth is measured by tallying GDP at the national level and sales and profits at the company level, and pursuit of GDP and profit is the overwhelming priority of national economic and political life.

But an expanding body of evidence is now telling us to think again.^8-18 Economic growth may be the world’s secular religion, but for much of the world it is a god that is failing—underperforming for most of the world’s people and, for those in affluent societies, now creating more problems than it is solving. The never-ending drive to grow the overall U.S. economy undermines communities and the environment. It fuels a ruthless international search for energy and other resources; it fails at generating the needed jobs; and it rests on a manufactured consumerism that is not meeting the deepest human needs. Americans are substituting growth and consumption for dealing with the real issues—for doing things that would truly make the country better off. Psychologists have pointed out, for example, that while economic output per person in the United States has risen sharply in recent decades, there has been no increase in life satisfaction, and levels of distrust and depression have increased substantially.^1,19,20

Writing in Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures, psychologist David Myers sees this pattern of soaring wealth and shrinking spirit as “the American paradox.” He observes that at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Americans found themselves “with big houses and broken homes, high incomes and low morale, secured rights and diminished civility. We were excelling at making a living but too often failing at making a life. We celebrated our prosperity but yearned for purpose. We cherished our freedoms but longed for connection. In an age of plenty, we were feeling spiritual hunger. These facts of life lead us to a startling conclusion: Our becoming better off materially has not made us better off psychologically.”^21,22

Before it is too late, America should begin to move to a post-growth society where working life, the natural environment, our communities, and the public sector are no longer sacrificed for the sake of mere GDP growth; where the illusory promises of continuous growth no longer provide an excuse for neglecting to deal generously with compelling social needs; and where citizen democracy is no longer held hostage to the growth imperative.

For the most part, advocates for change have worked within the current system of political economy, but in the end, this approach will not succeed when what is needed is transformative change in the system itself. The case for immediate action on issues like health care and climate change is compelling, but the social and environmental challenges just reviewed will not yield to problem-solving incrementalism. Environmentalists and other progressives have gone down the path of incremental reform for decades, and the results of that experiment are in. The roots of our environmental and social problems are deeply systemic and thus require transformational change—the shift to a new, sustaining economy ushered in by a new politics. George Bernard Shaw famously said that all progress depends on not being reasonable. It’s time for a large amount of civic unreasonableness.

What circumstances might make transformational change and the birth of a sustaining economy possible? A decline in legitimacy as the system fails to deliver social and environmental well-being, together with a mounting sense of crisis and loss—both occurring at a time of wise leadership and accompanied by the articulation of a new American narrative or story and by the appearance across the landscape of new and appropriate models—were all these to come together, real change would be possible. Most of all, what is needed is a new politics and a new social movement, powerful and inclusive. The best hope for such a new political dynamic is a fusion of those concerned about environment, social justice, and political democracy into one progressive force. They all have a shared fate because they face the same reality: a political economy that does not prioritize sustaining human and natural communities.
.

Policies for a New Economy.

Americans are told routinely that the priority must be a strong economy. Yet many now appreciate that of equal or higher importance are a strong society, strong nature, and a strong democracy. Today’s economy offers little help in these regards. We must move beyond it. We need to reinvent the economy, not merely restore it.

Americans now face a great imperative to build a new economy—a sustaining economy. Sustaining people, communities, and nature must henceforth be seen as the core goals of economic activity, not hoped-for byproducts of market success, growth for its own sake, and modest regulation. The watchword of the sustaining economy is caring: caring for each other, for the natural world, and for the future.^23-25

America’s open-ended commitment to aggregate economic growth is consuming environmental and social capital, both now severely diminished. That said, it is also clear that even in a post-growth America, many things do indeed need to grow: growth in good jobs and in the incomes of the poor; growth in the availability of health care and the efficiency of its delivery; growth in education, research, and training; growth in security against the risks of illness, job displacement, old age, and disability; growth in investment in public infrastructure and in environmental protection and amenity; growth in the deployment of climate-friendly and other green technologies; growth in the restoration of both ecosystems and local communities; growth in non-military government spending at the expense of military; and growth in international assistance for sustainable, people-centered development for the half of humanity that lives in poverty, to mention some prominent needs.

Jobs and meaningful work top this list because they are so important and unemployment is so devastating. Likely future rates of economic growth, even with further federal stimulus, are only mildly associated with declining unemployment. The availability of jobs, the well-being of people, and the health of communities should not be forced to await the day when overall economic growth might deliver them. It is time to shed the view that government mainly provides safety nets and occasional Keynesian stimuli. Instead, government should have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that those seeking decent jobs find them. And the surest and most cost-effective way to that end is direct government spending, investments and incentives targeted at creating jobs in areas where there is high social benefit. Creating new jobs in areas of democratically determined priority is certainly better than trying to create jobs by pump priming aggregate economic growth, especially in an era when the macho thing to do in much of business is to shed jobs, not create them.

Of particular importance for the new economy are government policies that will temper growth while simultaneously improving social and environmental well-being, policies such as shorter work weeks and longer vacations, with more time for children and families; greater labor protections, job security, and benefits, including generous parental leaves; guarantees to part-time workers; restrictions on advertising; a new design for the twenty-first-century corporation, one that embraces re-chartering, new ownership patterns, and stakeholder, rather than shareholder, primacy; incentives for local production and consumption; strong social and environmental provisions in trade agreements; rigorous environmental, health, and consumer protection, including full incorporation of environmental and social costs in prices; greater economic and social equality, with genuinely progressive taxation of the rich and greater income support for the poor; heavy spending on public services; and initiatives to address population growth at home and abroad. Taken together, these policies would undoubtedly slow GDP growth, but our well-being and quality of life would improve.

If the market is going to work for the betterment of society, environmental and social costs should be incorporated into prices, and wrong-headed government subsidies, a vast empire today, should be eliminated. Honest prices will ensure that people take into account the environmental and social impacts of their purchases, whether they are environmentally conscious or just minding their pocketbooks. High prices are a problem not so much because they are high but because people don’t have the money to pay them and alternatives (such as truly fuel-efficient vehicles) are not readily available. Honest prices would be higher prices for many things, but that does not mean Exxon should pocket the difference or that equity issues should remain unaddressed.

Responsibly high energy prices—driven, for example, by a declining cap on carbon dioxide emissions—will help protect the Earth’s climate, increase demand for efficient vehicles and public transportation, spur new renewable energy industries, decrease the supply vulnerabilities and international entanglements of imported oil, strengthen local communities, and encourage localization rather than globalization. But honest energy prices must be accompanied by measures that make them affordable for those on whom they would otherwise impose a serious hardship. Challenging America’s growth fetish and consumerism will not go far when so many barely get by and are desperate for jobs and greater income security.²⁶ Clearly, addressing social and environmental needs must go hand in hand.

Conventional wisdom on the clash of economy and environment is that we can have it both ways, thanks to new technology and innovation. We do indeed need a revolution in energy, transportation, construction, and agriculture technologies. This ecological modernization can be driven by quantitative restrictions that ensure extractions from the environment do not exceed its regenerative capacities and discharges to the environment do not exceed its assimilative capacities. But the rate of technological change required to deal with environmental challenges in the face of rapid economic growth is extremely high and rarely achieved. If pollution from an industrial facility is cut in half but growth spawns another, similar plant, there is no net gain. Housing, appliances, and transportation can become more energy efficient, but the improvements will be overwhelmed if there are more cars, larger houses, and more new appliances – and there are. There’s a limit to how fast and far new technology can take us; technological change alone is not enough.

Americans are struggling today with the combined impacts of lost financial assets, underwater mortgages, and layoffs. These problems are associated with a slowdown in GDP growth, but they were not caused by a failure of growth, and they will not necessarily be cured by more growth. We have had jobless growth before. As is now appreciated, the current Great Recession and its consequences are the result of government failing to intervene appropriately in the marketplace—in financial markets, in housing markets, in labor markets, and elsewhere. Today we are feeling the effects of misguided policies, including massive deregulation, that have led to deep structural maladies. One lesson is clear: Today’s markets do not function well without strong and effective government intervention.

The economic crisis should also teach us to live more simply and focus more locally. It is time to move beyond consumerism and hyperventilating lifestyles. There has been too little focus on consumption and the mounting environmental and social costs of American “affluenza,” extravagance, and wastefulness. Being less focused on getting and spending (initially, in part, because there is less to spend) can help society rediscover that the truly important things in life are not at the mall nor, indeed, for sale anywhere.

Psychological studies show that materialism is toxic to happiness and that more income and more possessions do not lead to a lasting sense of well-being or satisfaction with life. What makes people happy is warm personal relationships and giving rather than getting, things that are possible at a human scale.^1,27-29

The good news is that more and more people sense that there’s a great misdirection of life’s energy. In one survey, 83 percent of Americans said society is not focused on the right priorities, 81 percent said America is too focused on shopping and spending, 88 percent said American society is too materialistic, and 84 percent want to spend more time with family and friends.³⁰

These numbers, even if half right, suggest that there is a powerful base on which we can build. Indeed, new signposts are emerging: Confront consumption. Practice sufficiency. Create social environments where overconsumption is viewed as silly, wasteful, ostentatious. Establish commercial-free zones. Buy local. Revitalize local economies. Eat slow food. Downshift. Public policy should support these directions, and it should also devise new measures to track improvements in social welfare, a purpose for which GDP is a miserable failure.^31,32

Beyond policy change, another hopeful path into a sustainable and just future is to seed the landscape with innovative models. One of the most remarkable and yet under-noticed things going on in the United States today is the proliferation of innovative models of “local living” economies, sustainable communities and transition towns, and for-benefit businesses that prioritize community and environment over profit and growth. The community-owned Evergreen Cooperative in Cleveland is a wonderful case in point. An impressive array of new-economy businesses has been brought together in the American Sustainable Business Council and the B-Corporation program, and a new Fourth Sector is emerging, bringing together the best of the private sector, the not-for-profit NGOs, and government.^33-41
.

A New Politics

The transformation of today’s economy requires far-reaching and effective government action. How else can the market be made to work for the environment rather than against it? How else can corporate behavior be altered or programs built to meet real human and social needs? Government is the principal means available to citizens to collectively exercise their stewardship responsibility to leave the world a better place. Inevitably, then, the drive for transformative change leads to the political arena, where a vital, muscular democracy, steered by an informed and engaged citizenry, is needed.

Yet, merely to state the matter this way suggests the enormity of the challenge. The ascendancy of market fundamentalism and anti-regulation, anti-government ideology has been particularly frightening, but even the passing of these extreme ideas would leave deeper, more long-term deficiencies. It is unimaginable that today’s American politics will deliver the transformative changes needed.

There are many reasons why government in Washington today is too often more problem than solution. It is hooked on GDP growth—for its revenues, for its constituencies, and for its influence abroad. Government has been captured by the very corporations and concentration of wealth it should be seeking to regulate and revamp. And it is hobbled by an array of dysfunctional institutional arrangements, beginning with the way presidents are elected.

Building the strength needed for change requires, first of all, a unified agenda among progressives. As mentioned, the best hope for a new political dynamic is a fusion of those concerned about environment, social justice, and political democracy into one progressive force. A unified agenda would embrace a profound commitment to social justice and environmental protection, a sustained challenge to consumerism and commercialism and the lifestyles they offer, a healthy skepticism of growth-mania and a new look at what society should be striving to grow, a challenge to corporate dominance and a redefinition of the corporation and its goals, and a commitment to an array of major pro-democracy reforms.

The new agenda should also incorporate advocacy of human rights as a central concern. For example, though environmental justice has gained a foothold in American environmentalism, it is not yet the priority it should be. Many established environmental issues should be seen as human rights issues—the right to water and sanitation, the right to sustainable development, the right to cultural survival, freedom from climatic disruption and ruin, freedom to live in a non-toxic environment, and the rights of future generations.

The new politics must turn major attention to the urgent need for political reforms in campaign finance, elections, the regulation of lobbying, and much more. In their book Off Center, political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have developed an important and innovative agenda for political reform, including the revitalization of large-scale membership organizations that give citizens more leverage in the political process and measures that could increase voter turnout, open primaries, pursue nonpartisan redistricting, guarantee a minimum free TV and radio time for all federal candidates meeting basic requirements, reduce the perks of incumbency, and bring back the Fairness Doctrine requiring equal air time for competing political views.⁴² Meanwhile, Common Cause, Americans for Campaign Reform, and others have developed a powerful case for clean and fair elections through public financing, a case now even stronger due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.^43-45

Successful political reform will also depend on addressing issues of social justice. In his book On Political Equality, America’s senior political scientist Robert Dahl concludes it is “highly plausible” that “powerful international and domestic forces [could] push us toward an irreversible level of political inequality that so greatly impairs our present democratic institutions as to render the ideals of democracy and political equality virtually irrelevant.”⁴⁶ The authors brought together by political analysts Lawrence Jacobs and Theda Skocpol in Inequality and American Democracy document the emergence of a vicious cycle: Income disparities shift political access and influence to wealthy constituencies and businesses, which further imperils the potential of the democratic process to correct the growing income disparities.⁴⁷

If the first watchword of the new politics is “broaden the agenda,” the second is “get political.” Lawyering and lobbying are important, but what the new politics must build now is a mighty force in electoral politics. Building the necessary muscle will require major efforts at grassroots organizing; strengthening groups working at the state and community levels; and developing messages, appeals, and stories that inspire and motivate because they speak in a language people can understand, resonating with what is best in both the American tradition and the public’s values and presenting compelling visions of a future worth having for families and children.

Our environmental discourse has been dominated thus far by lawyers, scientists, and economists. It has been too wonkish, out of touch with Main Street. Now, we need to hear a lot more from the poets, preachers, philosophers, and psychologists. And indeed, we are. The world’s religions are coming alive to their environmental roles—entering their ecological phase, in the words of religious leader Mary Evelyn Tucker. And just last year, the American Psychological Association devoted its annual gathering to environmental issues. The Earth Charter text and movement are providing a powerful base for a revitalization of the ethical and spiritual grounds of environmental efforts.

The final watchword of the new politics is “build the movement.” Efforts to build strength in America’s electoral process and to bring together a wider array of constituencies embracing a broader agenda should contribute to the emergence of a powerful citizens’ movement for change. The new politics must be broadly inclusive, reaching out to embrace union members and working families, minorities and people of color, religious organizations, environmentalists, the women’s movement, and other communities of complementary interest and shared fate. It is unfortunate, but true, that stronger alliances are still needed to overcome the “silo effect” that separates progressive communities, including those working on environment, domestic political reforms, the liberal social agenda, human rights, international peace, consumer issues, world health and population concerns, and world poverty and underdevelopment.
.

An Agenda for Analysis and Action

Building a new economy and a new politics must be an ecumenical endeavor open to many progressive perspectives and ideas. Progress requires concerted efforts from many communities in at least three areas: challenging the current order of things, envisioning a new order and identifying the initiatives needed to realize it, and building capacity to promote change.

Challenging the current order. A great many Americans remain enthralled by a reigning mythology now deeply embedded in the national consciousness: GDP growth is an unalloyed good. Government regulation and other interference in the economy must meet the test of economic benefit. America is a land of economic opportunity and consumer sovereignty. The poor are poor because they deserve to be. We are well on our way to solving our environmental problems. America is the most democratic nation on Earth, and also the most generous, with the best health care.
The reality, of course, is far from these propositions. It is important that this mythology be dethroned and that accurate information about actual conditions and trends be brought to an ever wider audience. Real life in America too often sharply conflicts with the country’s best values and highest aspirations.

Envisioning a new order. Envisioning the new economy and a new politics involves three linked projects:

1. The Values Project. What are the core values to be prioritized and harmonized?
2. The Transformations Project. What transformations are needed in order to realize core values? What measures would best characterize and carry forward these transitions? It is not difficult to identify areas where transformative change is essential:
• The market: from laissez-faire to regulation and governance in the public interest;
• The corporation: from shareholder primacy to stakeholder primacy, from one ownership and motivation model to many;
• Social conditions: from economic insecurity to security, from vast inequities to fundamental fairness;
• Economic growth: from growth fetish to post-growth society, from mere GDP growth to growth in human welfare and democratically determined priorities;
• Indicators: from GDP to accurate measures of social and environmental health and quality of life;
• Consumerism: from consumerism and “affluenza” to sufficiency and mindful consumption;
• Communities: from ruthless runaway enterprise to vital local economies, from rootlessness to rootedness and solidarity;
• Dominant cultural values: from having to being, from getting to giving, from richer to better, from separate to connected, from apart from nature to part of nature, from transcendent to interdependent, from now to forever;
• Politics: from weak democracy to strong, from corporatocracy to true popular sovereignty;
• Global vision: from economic globalization to planetary civilization worthy of the name, from invidious division to global citizenship;
• Foreign policy and the military: from exceptionalism to interdependence, from hard power to soft, from war economy to peace economy.
3. The Synthesis Project. Presenting a positive, integrated vision of life in a world transformed is a powerful motivator of change. Narrative is important—telling a new American story and forging a new American dream.

Building capacity to promote change. Much needs to be done to strengthen capacities for transformative change. Areas needing attention include:

• “Progressive fusion” in politics: overcoming silos, forging a common progressive agenda, and uniting unexpected allies with shared values;
• Social movements: building a powerful movement for transformative change;
• Community actions: seeding the landscape with innovative “new economy” models;
• Key institutions: engaging religions, local governments, youth, colleges and universities, and others;
• International solidarity: building ties to those abroad with common concerns;
• Crisis anticipation: getting ready for crises that will surely come;
• Ideas, research, and writing: building think-tank capacities and linking ideas to action.

An important initial step is to identify and elaborate on early initiatives and objectives that are plausible and not seemingly utopian, but that create momentum towards long-term goals and shape future paths.
.

Conclusion

Historian Richard Hofstadter made the following interesting observation in The American Political Tradition:⁴⁸
“Although it has been said repeatedly that we need a new conception of the world to replace the ideology of self-help, free enterprise, competition, and beneficent cupidity upon which Americans have been nourished since the foundation of the Republic, no new conceptions of comparable strength have taken root and no statesman with a great mass following has arisen to propound them...."
"Almost the entire span of American history under the present Constitution has coincided with the rise and spread of modern industrial capitalism. In material power and productivity the United States has been a flourishing success. Societies that are in such good working order have a kind of mute organic consistency. They do not foster ideas that are hostile to their fundamental working arrangements. Such ideas may appear, but they are slowly and persistently insulated, as an oyster deposits nacre around an irritant. They are confined to small groups of dissenters and alienated intellectuals, and except in revolutionary times they do not circulate among practical politicians.”

Times change. It is now clear that American society is no longer in “good working order.” It is time to foster ideas that challenge the “fundamental working arrangements.”

See also Speth's vision part II
.

References

1. Speth, JG. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability 1–78, 126–164 (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2009).
2. New Economy Working Group [online]. www.neweconomyworkinggroup.org [4].
3. Wilkinson, R & Pickett, K. The Spirit Level (Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2009).
4. Greider, W. The Soul of Capitalism (Simon and Schuster, New York, 2003).
5. Barnes, P. Capitalism 3.0. (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2006).
6. Wolin, S. Democracy Inc. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008).
7. Kaiser, R. So Damn Much Money (Alfred Knopf, New York, 2009).
8. Jackson, T. Prosperity Without Growth (Earthscan, London, 2009).
9. Victor, P. Managing Without Growth (Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, 2008).
10. Spratt, S et al. The Great Transition (New Economics Foundation, London, 2009).
11. Brown, P & Garver, G. Right Relationship: Building a Whole Earth Economy (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2009).
12. Daly, HE. Beyond Growth (Beacon Press, Boston, 1996).
13. Hamilton, C. Growth Fetish (Pluto Press, London, 2004).
14. Korten, D. Agenda for a New Economy (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2009).
15. Simms, A et al. Growth Isn’t Possible: Why We Need a New Economic Direction (New Economics Foundation, London, 2010).
16. Costanza, R. Stewardship for a “full” world. Current History 107, 30–35 (2008).
17. Beddoe, R et al. Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions and technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 2483–2489 (2009).
18. de Graaf, J & Batker, D. What’s the Economy for, Anyway? [online]. www.bullfrogfilms.com [5].
19. Barber, BR. Consumed (W.W. Norton, New York, 2007).
20. The Worldwatch Institute. State of the World 2010: Transforming Cultures, From Consumerism to Sustainability (W.W. Norton, New York, 2010).
21. Myers, DG. What is the good life? Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures 15 (2004).
22. Myers, DG. The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2000).
23. New Economy Network [online]. www.neweconomynetwork.org [6]
24. New Economics Institute [online]. www.neweconomicsinstitute.org [7]
25. Eisler, R. The Real Wealth of Nations (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2007).
26. Ehrenreich, B. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America (Henry Holt, New York, 2001).
27. Kasser, T & Kanner, AD, eds. Psychology and Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic World (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 2004).
28. Diener, E & Seligman, MEP. Beyond money: toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5 (2004).
29. Layard, R. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science (Penguin, New York, 2005).
30. Center for a New American Dream. New American Dream: A Public Opinion Poll [online]. (2004). www.newdream.org/about/PollResults.pdf [8].
31. Costanza, R et al. Beyond GDP: The Need for New Measures of Progress (Pardee Center, Boston University, Boston, 2009).
32. Schor, JB. The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need (Harper Collins, New York, 1998).
33. American Sustainable Business Council [online]. www.asbcouncil.org [9]
34. B Corporation [online]. www.bcorporation.net [10]
35. FourthSector [online].www.fourthsector.net
36. Evergreen Cooperatives [online]. www.evergreencoop.com [11]
37. The E.F. Schumacher Society [online]. www.smallisbeautiful.org [12]
38. Transition Colorado [online]. www.bouldercountygoinglocal.com [13]
39. Transition Santa Cruz [online]. transitionsc.org
40. Transition Network. Transition Initiatives Directory [online]. transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/TransitionCommunities
41. McKibben, B. Deep Economy (Henry Holt, New York, 2007).
42. Hacker, JS & Pierson, P. Off Center 185–223 (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2005).
43. Dworkin, R. The ‘devastating’ decision. New York Review of Books (2010).
44. Kirkpatrick, DD. Democrats try to rebuild campaign-spending barriers. New York Times (2010).
45. Americans for Campaign Reform. You Street [online]. www.youstreet.org [14]
46. Dahl, RA. On Political Equality (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2006).
47. Jacobs, LR & Skocpol, T, eds. Inequality and American Democracy (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2005).
48. Hofstadter, R. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It vii–ix (Vintage Books, New York, 1948).

300 years of fossil fuel addiction in 5 minutes -- by Post-Carbon Institute

This is just one of many videos from Post Carbon Institute. Founded in 2003 by Julian Darley, PCI is a think tank focusing on climate change, renewable energy and (re-)localization, resource and water depletion, limits to growth, overpopulation, and food. For more of his ideas see Relocalize Now! Getting Ready for Climate Change and the End of Cheap Oil (2005). PCI experts now include Richard Heinberg, Bill McKibben, Majora Carter, Wes Jackson, Joshua Farley, Richard Douthwaite, Rob Hopkins of the international Transition Towns, and many others. Partners are Transition US and Energy Bulletin.net.

Penseurs de la décroissance

Selon Wikipédia, la décroissance est un ensemble d'idées écologistes, anti-productivistes, anti-consuméristes qui appellent à une relocalisation des activités économiques afin de réduire l'empreinte écologique, et à mettre fin à la croissance illimitée sur une terre limitée par une réduction contrôlée ou «décroissance soutenable».

Parmi ses penseurs, le bioéconomiste Georgescu-Roegen, auteur de Demain la décroissance. Entropie, écologie, économie (1979); les anarcho-libertaires Jean-Pierre Tertrais, Du développement à la décroissance: de la nécessité de sortir de l'impasse suicidaire du capitalisme (2007, ci-contre), et Alain de Benoist, Demain la décroissance. Penser l'écologie jusqu'au bout (2008); et les écosocialistes Michel Beaud, Le basculement du monde (1997), et Serge Latouche, Le Pari de la décroissance (2006).

Leurs adeptes s'appellent «Objecteurs de Croissance», prônant des actions telles une journée sans achat, eco-villages, relocalisation, et simplicité volontaire. Leur sympathisants comptent José Bové, Albert Jacquard, et François Schneider du SERI. Même Nicolas Hulot dans l'Impératif écologique (2008) et Hubert Reeves dans Mal de terre (2003) frôlent cette pensée.

Le progrès est ... un des visages, et un visage incertain, du devenir. Il est remarquable que sur la ruine de la providence divine l'humanité laïque, la philosophie des Lumières, l'idéologie de la raison aient pu hypostasier et réifier l'idée de progrès en Loi et Nécessité de l'histoire humaine ; et cette idée a été à ce point désincarnée, détachée de toute réalité physique et biologique, qu'elle a fait ignorer le principe de corruption et de désintégration en oeuvre dans physis, cosmos, bios. Plus aveugle encore fut le mythe techno-bureaucratique du progrès qui régna pendant deux décennies. Il conçut la croissance industrielle comme l'opérateur du progrès humain. Dès lors, la croissance, vouée à progresser indéfiniment, devenait la preuve, la mesure, la promesse d'un progrès généralisé et infini... -- Edgar Morin, 1981

L'humanité court à sa perte, si elle se montre incapable d'infléchir totalement l'évolution de notre société de consommation ; en somme, si elle continue à se révéler irresponsable [...]. Il nous reste peu de temps pour sauver l'honneur et l'espoir d'une humanité en grand danger. -- René Dumont, 1988

cités dans Michel Beaud, Le basculement du monde (1997) p.281; ci-dessous, d'autres extraits tirés de ce livre en ligne :

^{Michel Beaud}

Menaces des temps présents (p.206+)

Disposant d'énormes moyens techniques et financiers, l'Humanité a surmonté bien des craintes et maîtrisé bien des menaces du passé, mais se trouve confrontée aux nouveaux périls nés de sa nouvelle puissance.

Longtemps ce fut la peur de la guerre nucléaire, aujourd'hui lovée quelque part dans les profondeurs de l'inconscience. Aujourd'hui, pour les hommes d'affaires les plus en vue, comme pour des fragments de familles réduits à dormir sous des porches, c'est l'insécurité de tous les instants. Les sociétés riches s'inquiètent de risques pour la santé, même infimes en probabilité, provenant de systèmes d'alimentation ou de soins. Des sociétés pauvres, en cours d'industrialisation et de modernisation, commencent à découvrir les menaces, pour la santé ou la vie, de pollutions ou d'accidents industriels, de malfaçons dans les constructions ou d'usage de matériaux ou de produits dangereux.

Il y a aussi les risques sociétaux, tenant aux effets des guerres et des chaos armés, aux nouveaux comportements des générations des pays riches qui ont été rejetées durablement dans le chômage et la précarité, aux nouveaux comportements des générations des pays pauvres qui ont grandi dans la misère, la lutte pour la vie et la violence ; et aussi les risques tenant aux dégénérescences de la démocratie (engagements non tenus, enrichissement personnel des élus, détournement des moyens publics, corruption)...

En outre, depuis plusieurs années, des responsables d'organismes internationaux, des experts laissent percer, en termes choisis, l'inquiétude que leur inspirent de possibles crises sur les marchés monétaires et boursiers. Le spéculateur George Soros, orfèvre en la matière, est plus explicite : « L'histoire a montré qu'il arrive bel et bien que les marchés financiers s'effondrent, entraînant dépression économique et troubles sociaux». Et encore : « Les marchés sont fondamentalement instables, contrairement à ce que prétendent les idéologues du laisser-faire […]. J'affirme que notre système risque de s'effondrer […]. L'effondrement du marché global serait un désastre dont on ne saurait imaginer les conséquences»

Et puis, il y a les risques découlant des nouvelles technologies, du nucléaire aux manipulations génétiques. D'autant que l'on sait maintenant que ces technologies ne restent pas strictement enfermées dans des laboratoires jusqu'au jour où leur maîtrise est parfaitement assurée.

On sait aussi que la raison d'État ignore et l’éthique et le principe de précaution....La logique marchande aussi a ses raisons qui ignorent l'éthique....

Victoires de l'irresponsabilité et de l'acratie (p.212+)

Irresponsabilité : dès lors que le marché pourvoit à tout, c’est au consommateur de faire le bon choix ; dès lors que l'argent est la valeur suprême, ceux qui n'en ont pas sont hors jeu ; dès lors que les marchés, notamment financiers, sont mondiaux, les dirigeants nationaux ont bien des excuses pour « laisser faire ». Firmes, gouvernements, professionnels (de la santé ou de la finance), savants ne lésinent certes pas sur les appels, les déclarations, les codes (de bonne conduite ou d'éthique). Mais, face aux processus en cours qui déstructurent nos sociétés, mettent en péril la Terre, menacent les humains, nul lieu où soit réellement élaborée et mise en oeuvre la stratégie pluridimensionnelle dont nous avons besoin.

Acratie : incapacité des hommes au pouvoir à l'assumer réellement, à affronter les enjeux majeurs, les problèmes les plus graves, à définir et engager les stratégies nécessaires et à imposer les efforts que les choix faits impliquent. Et même ceux dont les discours montrent qu'ils ont bien vu l'essentiel se révèlent incapables de le prendre en charge ou de mettre en oeuvre les processus ou les procédures qui s'imposent.

Des compromis planétaires ? (p.241+)

Au niveau mondial, on peut se réjouir d'une certaine prise de conscience, d'avancées rendues possibles par certaines réunions internationales et de mesures, annoncées ou mises en oeuvre, dans quelques domaines. Mais les efforts ne sont pas à la hauteur des problèmes.

Le montant de l'aide publique du Nord au développement du Sud est tombé à moins de 0,3 % du produit brut des pays du Nord, record historique. Les États-Unis n'ont toujours pas engagé une politique résolue de réduction de leur consommation de pétrole. Le nécessaire codéveloppement Nord-Sud, qui permettrait de faire face aux urgences et des sociétés et de l'environnement demeure à un stade symbolique.

Si l'on prend comme référence le compromis social-démocrate qui a permis à quelques pays du Nord de mettre pendant plusieurs décennies la machinerie capitaliste en conformité avec certains idéaux de société (équité, solidarité, cohérence), deux « compromis » paraissent souhaitables au niveau planétaire. L'un et l'autre doivent viser à mettre la machinerie multinationale/mondiale en conformité avec le choix d'un monde vivable, dans le souci de faire face aux urgences et de répondre aux besoins essentiels sans sacrifier l'avenir.

D'abord un compromis Nord-Sud. Les pays riches du Nord doivent clairement s'engager à réduire leurs atteintes à l'environnement et à soutenir les politiques d'équipement et de modernisation du Sud assurant la sauvegarde de l'environnement. Pour les pays riches du Nord, il s'agit de :

• réorienter résolument leurs économies dans des voies assurant à chacun les moyens d'une vie digne, réalisant économies d'énergie et de matière et limitant les atteintes à l'environnement ;
• soutenir massivement les efforts faits par les pays en cours d'industrialisation pour adopter techniques et équipements visant ces objectifs ;
• soutenir les efforts des pays pauvres pour reconstruire des activités productives qui assurent la subsistance de chacun et sauvegardent les ressources essentielles (sol, eau, espèces végétales et animales).

Placé sous le signe du codéveloppement, un ensemble d'actions coordonnées dans ce sens peut d'ailleurs constituer un soutien à l'activité et à l'emploi, au Nord comme au Sud, et devrait permettre d'empêcher de profondes dégradations, tant sociales qu'environnementales, qui, si on les laissait s'aggraver, se révéleraient inévitablement plus coûteuses dans quelques décennies.

Simultanément, un autre compromis devrait être passé avec les très grandes firmes. Devraient contribuer à ce compromis des États, des organismes internationaux et des forces représentant le mouvement social et la société civile dans différentes régions du monde. Ce compromis devrait viser à :

• orienter vers des priorités, en suscitant et mobilisant des demandes monétaires, une partie de l'activité de la machinerie multinationale/mondiale
• border la fuite en avant technoscientique par une application stricte du principe de précaution
• limiter les périls liés à l'intégration de la technoscience dans les très grandes firmes et au développement des megasystèmes techniques.

^*****

Voir aussi La Déclaration de Tilburg (2008); la 2e Conférence sur la décroissance 2010; R&D Research and Degrowth / Recherche et Décroissance; et une entrevue pessimiste de Michel Beaud, Le Devoir 12 juillet 2010 : À bout de souffle, le capitalisme? Non, il règnera des années encore avec de nouveaux produits à consommer ou à spéculer, et de nouvelles tragédies pour faire basculer le monde.

La décroissance conviviale - MQDC

George Heriot, danse ronde des canadiens (gravure de 1807): BAC
Texte tiré du manifeste du Mouvement québécois pour un Décroissance conviviale. Voir ses principes de base, et d'autres références en bas. En bajo del texto, referencias en español.

*****

Quatre crises intimement liées

Crise écologique, d’abord. Inutile de rappeler que depuis l’industrialisation, les êtres humains ont fait disparaître des milliers d’espèces, pollué l’air, l’eau et le sol, décimé des forêts, produit assez de gaz à effet de serre pour modifier le climat, faire fondre les glaciers et élever le niveau des mers, le tout avec des conséquences incontrôlables. La population mondiale consomme comme si nous avions une planète et demie. Si les six milliards d’habitants de la planète pouvaient se permettre le mode de vie que les pays industrialisés font miroiter à travers le monde, c’est de six planètes dont nous aurions besoin.

Crise sociale, encore. Malgré toutes les promesses de l’idéologie de croissance, la sous-alimentation et l’insécurité alimentaire compromettent la santé de millions de personnes, dans le tiers-monde et dans les pays industrialisés, incluant le Québec. Au même moment, les maladies liées à l’american way of life et à sa pollution font leurs ravages : asthme, cancer, allergies, obésité, maladies cardio-vasculaires, problèmes de santé mentale, etc. Des milliers de personnes vivent des épisodes d’épuisement professionnel pour avoir trop travaillé tandis que des milliers d'autres personnes sont exclues du marché du travail et soumises à l’opprobre.

Crise du sens, toujours. Le stress et le sentiment de vide provoquent dépressions et suicides. Entraînés dans le tourbillon du productivisme et du consumérisme, nous n’avons pas le temps de réaliser que notre liberté se limite à celle de choisir parmi des produits et à s'identifier à des marques de commerce. Le sens véritable de la vie, qui est quête en soi, est évacué du programme. Continuellement occupés, agités, divertis, nous n'avons plus la possibilité de réfléchir alors même que nous consommons biens, services, ainsi que nos relations. Les liens humains prennent place dans un système où le réflexe cultivé est de chercher notre plus grand profit, au détriment de toute solidarité. Branchés sur des médias de masse qui procurent une illusion de présence, nous constatons avec impuissance notre difficulté d’être, tout simplement, avec nos semblables.

Crise politique, enfin. Les citoyens désabusés ne font pas confiance aux politiciens. Rien de surprenant, quand les multinationales imposent leurs règles avec la complicité des gouvernements en place. De grandes institutions non élues, telles l’Organisation mondiale du commerce, la Banque mondiale et le Fonds monétaire international, prennent des décisions qui affectent la vie de peuples entiers n’ayant pas leur mot à dire. Les contestations sont réprimées par la force policière, quand ce n’est législative et judiciaire. Mais qu’est-ce donc qui légitime le fait que les intérêts financiers des entreprises pèsent plus lourd que les droits des peuples?

Nous, «objecteurs de croissance», déplorons les ravages provoqués par l'idéologie de la croissance et toutes les conditions qui la déterminent.

Culs-de-sac
… L’expression développement durable, issue du rapport de la commission Brundtland en 1987, présuppose la possibilité du respect de l’environnement dans un contexte de croissance économique et propose de répondre aux besoins du présent sans compromettre la capacité des générations futures à répondre aux leurs. En faisant de la croissance une nécessité, le développement durable abandonne toute tentative sérieuse d’éliminer les activités économiques nuisibles. ... La satisfaction de nos « besoins » de mobilité, de confort et de télécommunications prépare aux générations futures un legs de pollution, de catastrophes climatiques et de déchets, entre autres.

... Le mouvement de la consommation responsable réussit lui aussi à convaincre une partie de la population de consommer des produits équitables, locaux, sans pesticides, biologiques, éco-énergétiques... Mais la possibilité de faire des « achats éthiques » évite de poser la question de la nécessaire réduction de la consommation (seul moyen direct de réduire la pollution, les émissions de gaz à effets de serre, la production de déchets). De la même manière, un effet rebond a été constaté avec les technologies éco-énergétiques...

L’idéologie du progrès … conçoit que l’Homme, maître de la nature, avance inéluctablement dans l’amélioration du monde. (Mais) la frénésie de l’innovation raccourcit le cycle de vie des objets, dont l’obsolescence est planifiée... Rapidement, les objets se retrouvent dans les dépotoirs, après avoir participé à l’exploitation des personnes qui les fabriquent, au gaspillage des ressources, à la consommation d’énergie et à la production de pollution. Ces phénomènes se trouvent légitimés par l’impératif de la croissance, même si l’exploitation des ressources naturelles engendre des conflits meurtriers et que la gestion des déchets coûte des sommes astronomiques. Cette idéologie, en posant comme légitime, sensée et nécessaire l’accumulation de richesses, justifie tous les moyens de faire de l’argent et de croître : marchandisation de l’eau, exploitation des enfants, guerres pour le pétrole - et marketing artificieux.

(Quant à l'auto, l'avion, l'ordinateur et d'autres «outils» censés nous libérer) ... nous devenons complètement dépendants de la technologie, incapables de fonctionner sans elle, incapables pour la plupart de comprendre comment elle fonctionne et de la réparer quand ses appareils se brisent. Les innovations technologiques exigent de grands investissements financiers, pour la recherche, le développement et la production. Leur confier la sauvegarde de l’environnement signifie au bout du compte l’abandon entre les mains des détenteurs de capitaux et des grandes compagnies de la possibilité des populations de prendre en main les défis de la vie commune ... La technologie métamorphose notre vision du monde et nos principes mêmes.

... la décroissance n’est pas le désir d’un impossible retour au passé. Elle se veut un choix lucide des inventions. La décroissance, c’est cesser de croire que ce qui est nouveau est meilleur... Nous accueillerons les inventions, les techniques qui aideront l’humanité à vivre plus simplement.

Sortir de la croissance
L’idéologie dominante pose la croissance économique comme souhaitable, nécessaire et inévitable. Une loi de la nature, dit-on. Évidemment, tout organisme vivant croît, mais cette croissance se stabilise rapidement. La croissance à l’infini est une construction mentale humaine, pas une fatalité économique.

La pensée dominante invoque de même la nature humaine pour justifier l’«inévitable» recherche du profit à court terme. Notre espèce survit pourtant depuis des millénaires grâce à l’entraide et à la coopération... l’intelligence, la créativité et la bonne volonté ....

...la croissance économique repose sur une consommation importante d’énergie fossile, dont la diminution des capacités de production est annoncée pour les prochaines décennies, et qu’il ne sera pas possible de remplacer si aisément, des perturbations importantes du système actuel sont à prévoir. De là l’urgence de repenser les choses au-delà de l’idéologie de la croissance.
Si on prétend que l’industrialisation a permis de produire des objets à moindre coût, c’est qu’on ne comptabilise pas la pollution de l’air, de l’eau et du sol, la maladie physique et mentale des employés de l’industrie, l’exil rural et la gestion des déchets … vu l’impossibilité écologique pure et simple de voir se perpétuer la croissance à l’infini, les «objecteurs de croissance» proposent une tentative de sortie du paradigme de la croissance. Il s’agit de préparer, et ce dans un souci de justice sociale, les sociétés aux défis des limites physiques de la biosphère.

Réinventer le vivre ensemble
Le mouvement de la décroissance ne prône pas la récession.… Puisant dans notre expérience de la simplicité volontaire, nous sommes convaincus qu’une société de décroissance...entraînera l’amélioration de la qualité de vie... (les) environnements sains, la participation du plus grand nombre aux décisions, l’entraide et les échanges humains gratuits, la créativité et les occasions d’épanouissement … l’économie consiste(ra) en échanges de biens et de services à petite échelle. Le travail est une occasion de participer à la vie communautaire ... Les entités de production sont de petites tailles et utilisent des machines simples à réparer et économiques d’usage. Par exemple : des métiers à tisser mécaniques actionnés par l’énergie humaine ou animale permettent une production beaucoup plus grande qu’un tissage manuel, sans demander les milliards de capitaux de construction et d’opération d’une manufacture industrielle et sans engendrer de perturbations écologiques. Le temps ne s’achète pas, ce n’est pas de l’argent, c’est un espace où s’épanouir.

Dans une société de décroissance, les talents et les habiletés sont consacrés à fabriquer des objets esthétiques et durables ... dans les communautés locales où chacun fait ses courses à pied, en vélo, en tricycle ou en tramway, en empruntant d’étroites allées bordées de jardins. Pourquoi ne pas importer le modèle des petits villages européens, évitant ainsi de parcourir des milliers de kilomètres outre-atlantiques en touristes pour les visiter? Échangeons simplement nos recettes plutôt que de faire voyager des cargaisons de biscuits outre-mer. La sécurité alimentaire incite à une production de proximité des aliments de base. Le jardinage, même en ville, en est une composante essentielle ...

Les rues et les boulevards urbains sont convertis en pistes cyclables et en trottoirs bordés de parcs. Puisqu’on engloutit moins de ressources dans la réfection des routes et dans la construction des ponts, celles-ci sont disponibles pour l’entretien du transport ferroviaire et l’installation de couloirs à l’abri du vent et de la neige pour le vélo d’hiver, par exemple. Dans une société favorisant ainsi l’activité physique … la médecine occupe une place beaucoup moins importante … (D)ans plusieurs pays du tiers-monde, actuellement affamés par les systèmes de production et de consommation des sociétés dites développées, une (telle) augmentation de leur accès aux biens et services, établissant une plus grande justice planétaire, chose écologiquement impossible si nous maintenons notre niveau de vie.

Cette partie apeurée de nous qui cherche la sécurité dans l’accumulation grincera des dents devant la rareté retrouvée et l’effort à fournir. Mais au-delà de la peur du manque et de l’inconfort, ces nouvelles structures changeront nos rapports aux autres et à la nature. En comblant notre besoin d’appartenance à une communauté et à un lieu, elles favoriseront des existences signifiantes.

La société actuelle est fort complexe et nous apparaît comme immuable … Évidemment, de nombreuses entreprises dont les activités n’ont d’utilité que dans le cadre d’un système de croissance économique (publicité, objets jetables, produits du pétrole, etc.) n’auront tôt ou tard pas le choix de ralentir puis d’arrêter leur production, bouleversant la situation de l’emploi. De là l’importance de s’éduquer et de se réoutiller vers une plus grande autonomie non marchande.

Les fermetures d’usines, événements dévastateurs dans une petite communauté, peuvent être l’occasion d’envisager autrement l’économie d’une région. En règle générale, on est prêt à investir des millions pour conserver les emplois, sans considérer la pertinence de ce qui est produit ni les conséquences de sa production. Pour la plupart des gens, la consommation et le crédit font partie des «acquis» qu’il ne faut pas remettre en cause, d’autant plus que le système économique actuel n’offre pas vraiment d’autre choix. Nous avons espoir qu’une éducation réaliste aux conséquences de notre niveau de vie, jointe à des expériences d’alternatives de subsistance qui permettent une réelle autonomie des communautés, mènera à des choix qui bénéficieront aux populations touchées en leur redonnant du pouvoir sur leur devenir, tout en préservant l’équilibre écologique.

Pour mettre en œuvre une société qui respecte vraiment les êtres et la nature, il est essentiel de réviser nos valeurs et notamment de rejeter l’accumulation et la compétition. Pour maintenir les écosystèmes et la biodiversité, il ne peut y avoir de millionnaires. Concernant la survie de l’espèce humaine, il est essentiel de cultiver le détachement face à l’appât du gain.

Sommes-nous rêveurs? Peut-être devrions-nous poser autrement la question : sommes-nous plus rêveurs que ceux qui pensent améliorer le bien-être général en soutenant une forte croissance économique?

*****

Voir Wikipédia sur les penseurs de la décroissance (ou bioéconomie), de la simplicité volontaire, aussi le bonheur national brut, l'après-développement, l'anti-consommation, ville en transition, altermondialisme. Et la Charte des Verts mondiaux (2001).

En español, ver Wikipedia sobre desarollo sostenible, ODM, decrecimiento, economía del don, anticonsumismo, Carta de los Verdes mundiales, economía ecológica. Red y concepto de Transition Towns.