Critical Times

It is increasingly being understood that capitalist-consumer society has become grossly unjust and unsustainable, and heading towards catastrophic breakdown. Yet many are unsure about what we should be trying to do. I want to outline an answer, but first it is important to make clear the “limits to growth” perspective on our global situation.

The Situation

For some thirty years an overwhelmingly convincing “limits to growth” case has been accumulating, showing that the affluent industrial way of life we have in countries like Australia involves rates of production and consumption and therefore resource use and environmental impact that are far too high to be kept up for long. (For the detail see Trainer, 1995a and 1995b.) All the world’s people could never rise to them. We can have them only because we are taking most of the word’s resource wealth. The rich world per capita resource consumption is 15 to 20 times the level for the poorest half of the world’s people. We get 86% of world income while the poorest one fifth get only 1.3%.

If all the people we are likely to have on earth soon after 2070, 9-10 billion, were to have Australia’s present per capita resource use then world production would have to be 8 times what it is now. If we tried to rise to that level estimated potentially recoverable resources of all fossil fuels and one third of the minerals would be exhausted by about 2040.

Recent ‘footprint’ analysis (Wachernagel and Rees, 1995) shows that it takes at least 4.5 ha of productive land to provide food, water, energy and settlement area to one person in a rich country.

If 10 billion people were to live as we do in Sydney the area of productive land required would be about 8 times all the productive land on the planet. Our society is not somewhat unsustainable; it is far beyond sustainability.

The global environmental problem is similarly explained in terms of there being far too much producing and consuming going on. For example the atmospheric scientists have told us that if we are to stop the carbon concentration in the atmosphere getting any worse we must cut the input rate by 60-80%. If we were to cut it by 60% and share the remaining energy between 11 billion people, each of us would have to get by on 1/18 of the volume we use now. Most people have no idea of these magnitudes, i.e., of the fact that we are far beyond sustainable levels and that we must cut resource use and environmental impact to a small fraction of present levels.

Similarly the most disturbing ecological problem, the loss of species, is due to the loss of habitat. One species of the possibly 30 million that exist human beings, is taking more than one quarter of all the biological production occurring on the planet (40% of land production). (Vitousek, et al., 1986.) If we try to increase production and consumption, or extend rich world living standards to all, there will soon be no habitat left for any other species!

Possibly the most disturbing problems being caused by the commitment to affluence and growth are the deprivation and underdevelopment of the Third World. We in rich countries are getting 80% of the world’s resource output and consuming resources at 15-20 times the per capita rate of the poorest half of the world’s people. The global economy allows market forces to determine how resources are distributed and what is developed. The inevitable result is that the rich take most of the resources and goods produced while the poor are deprived of a fair share, and the development that takes place in the Third World does little more than put their land and resources into producing exports to enrich local elites, corporations and First World shoppers. Conventional economic development is best regarded as a form of plunder. (Chussudowsky, 1997, Goldsmith, 1997, Trainer, 1989, 1995a, 1995b.)

We should therefore not be surprised that according to the UN’s 1996 Human Development Report the poorest one-third of the world’s people are now actually getting poorer each year. Clearly the global economy is massively unjust. It’s mechanisms deprive the majority to provide us with our high rates of consumption. Satisfactory development for the Third World is impossible unless the rich countries stop hogging the resources and stop imposing the conventional free market development model on the Third World. Gandhi summed up the situation long ago with the statement,

“The rich must live more simply so that the poor may simply live.”

Clearly the major global problems facing us cannot be solved unless we move to ways of life that enable us to live well on far lower levels of production and consumption than we have now in rich countries. Yet what is the supreme goal in all societies? It is economic growth; i.e., to increase the production, consumption, “living standards” and GNP, as much as possible, constantly and without any limit. The absurdly impossible and suicidal implications of this never-questioned commitment are easily demonstrated.

Let’s assume that Australia’s averages 3% p. a. economic growth until 2070, and that all the people in the world then will have risen to the “living standards” we would have then. The total amount of economic output in the world would be 110 times what it is today. Yet no politician or economist or journalist seems to see any problem here. In fact they would want at least 4% growth, which would make the multiple 220.

It is not plausible to assume that technical advance or recycling or development of renewable energy sources or growth of the service sector will enable us to keep the affluent-industrial consumer society going, let alone extend it to all people. (Trainer, 1995a.) The above figures and multiples are far to big for that.

The solution.

From these conclusions about the nature of the problem we can see the basic form that a sustainable and just society for all must take.

There must be a) much simpler, less affluent lifestyles, b) highly self-sufficient local economies, c) much cooperation and participation, d) a quite different economy, one not driven by market forces and the profit motive, and one in which there is no growth.

My The Conserver Society (Trainer, 1995a) summarises what many are saying in these areas. The key concept is the development of small scale, highly self-sufficient settlements in which local people take control of the local production of most of the goods and services they need, with relatively little importing and exporting. Most of the things we need would be produced from local farms and factories by local labour using local resources and capital. Smallness of scale and localism will be crucial, if only because there will not be the energy to sustain much international trade, investment or tourism etc.

Some of the other crucial elements in an ecologically sustainable society would be, Permaculture design principles such as dense “edible landscapes” all through our suburbs, local production of most food, furniture, crockery etc., decentralisation so most people can get to work on a bicycle, much craft production, few big firms, local working bees and committees, development of local commons as sources of materials and amenity, neighbourhood workshops, ponds, windmills etc., town banks, local currencies, many sources of free goods from the neighbourhood commons, and town and suburb self- government, the digging up of many city roads,—and the need to work for money only one day a week!

An almost totally new economy must be created. It might have an important role for small private firms and for market forces, but these would have to be under social control. The basic production, development and distribution decisions would have to be made collectively. There would have to be no growth at all. There would also be many free goods from local commons,, much giving and much economic activity that does not involve money or markets, and far less work and production than there is now. There would be much less for states to do because most economic and political activity would be taking place in small localities. There would be few if any transnational corporations and banks.

The crucial point here is that these are not preferences or options among many others. This is the general form a sustainable society must take whether we like it or not! We cannot solve the big global problems facing us unless in rich and poor countries we move to settlements, lifestyles and economies of this general form, i.e., to The Simpler Way.

The transition required is so vast that most of us (including me) would say our chances of achieving it are slight. It is not just that we must scrap the capitalist system and move to an economy that is not driven by market forces and the profit motive. We must also accept very low levels of resource consumption and therefore very low “living standards” conventionally defined, radically redesigned settlements and the complete absence of economic growth.

The biggest changes must be in values and world view. The consumer mentality which identifies welfare and progress with high incomes and the capacity to purchase many goods must be replaced by one in which satisfaction comes from community, worthwhile work a relaxed pace, security, self-sufficiency, living in a pleasant and rich landscape, artistic and cultural activities, etc.

What can we do here and now?

So what can we do to contribute to such a huge transition? My answer is, help to build impressive examples of alternative and sustainable settlements, so that as growth and greed society increasingly fails to provide for people they will be able to see that many are living with a high quality of life in simpler ways that are just, sustainable and possible for all to share.

What too few realise is that this work is now well underway. There is now a Global Ecovillage Network in which many small groups all around the world are experimenting with the building of new settlements and systems more or less of the required type. (See Douthwaite, 1996, Schwarz,1998, Trainer, 1995.)

I believe we should continue to argue and organise against the evils of the existing socio-economic system, but after decades of doing this I have come to recognise that the mainstream steadfastly refuses to attend to the limits to growth analysis. I continue to argue it wherever I can, but mainly in order to persuade people to come and join us in the ecovillage movement. I want to sketch what this position means in terms of the practical action that ordinary people could take up.

The basic “Let’s Save Our Town” Strategy.

All over the world towns are dying and large numbers of people in city suburbs are unemployed while going without necessities they could collectively be producing. The following strategy ;aims at helping disadvantaged groups and regions to begin meeting some of their own needs while at the same time taking the first steps towards fundamental transformation in local economies.

A small group must come together to form a Community Development Cooperative. The CDC’s initial concern should be how to enable the many people excluded from the normal economy to start producing for themselves. Inother words the CDC should establish a community garden and workshop in which it can organise low income receivers in the production of some of the goods and services they need, within a quite new economic sector.

The CDC should also organise regular voluntary community working bees, especially on projects that will increase local economic self-sufficiency, such as building or fitting out premises for new firms and developing neighbourhood “commons”, for example edible landscapes of fruit and nut trees providing “free” food.

Significant economic renewal of a town or suburb cannot take place unless a new or local currency is created.

The essential tragedy the present economy inflicts on millions of people is to force them to be unemployed and deprived while they are potentially capable of producing many of the things they need. In the present economy these people cannot work for and buy from each other because they have no money. This is a ridiculous situation and we can easily avoid it, simply by printing our own money! A LETSystem in effect allows anyone to create and use all the money they wish.

Unfortunately there is a tendency to assume that all we have to do is get a new currency into circulation and economic renewal will automatically result. This is a serious mistake. It has been found that LETS transactions usually make up no more than 5% of a member’s economic activity, let alone the activity of the region. The main problem participants have is that there is not enough they can buy with their LETS credits. LETS leaves individuals to find something to produce and sell. There are many low skilled individuals who can’t offer much for sale but would be quite effective employees in new local firms.

The most important need therefore is not for a new currency, though that is essential—it is to set up firms. The CDC must prod and assist people to set them up, and it must itself set up some of these ventures.

Why won’t new firms automatically emerge if people have more (new) money to spend? The main problem is that the existing local shops and firms would want to increase their sales a lot before they would need to employ more staff. The CDC must work out how best to break this log jam. For example, in the case of restaurants the solution would seem to be to employ people in the CDC’s gardens producing vegetables to sell to the restaurants for new money.

The crucial point here is that the group of people who will have access to new money, i.e., the new economic sector we are adding, cannot go on buying things from the old firms in the town unless it is possible for those firms to use the new money to purchase things from the new sector. In the long run the main thing the old firms will buy from the new sector will indeed be labour, but at first the CDC must find other things it can supply to them. The other major task the CDC has to work on is the replacement of as many town imports as possible with items produced in the town, if at all possible within the new sector.

These have only been the key opening moves in a long term strategy, which I detail in What Is To Be Done Now (in press.). Later the CDC must explore the establishment of a town bank, the development of community enriching facilities and commons, business incubators, market days, cultural and leisure functions, local “taxation” and insurance schemes, and especially mechanisms for town self-government.

Above all the CDC must constantly work to increase the awareness of townspeople, so that they come to understand that they must support the town if it is to survive, and more importantly, to see that global problems like environmental destruction and Third World deprivation cannot be eliminated unless we move to The Simpler Way.

Conclusion.

If we do manage to establish a just and sustainable world order the transition will have begun in neighbourhoods and towns like yours. The task will not have been done by officials and experts. It will have been begun by ordinary people like you and me living there—no one else can do it.

I firmly believe that the fate of the planet depends on whether we in the Global Ecovillage Movement can establish enough impressive examples of settlements which follow The Simpler Way. Only if people in the mainstream can see that there is an alternative that is pleasant and ecologically sustainable are they likely to move from the consumer way. Unfortunately the petroleum situation indicates that we do not have much time in which to get enough examples going.

One implication of this strategy is that the best thing to do now is not to fight capitalism head on. The best thing to do is to build its replacement. This is the anarchist principle of “prefiguring”. At the very least it enables a focus on the positive rather than a preoccupation with the evils all around us and with the need to fight and defeat their basic cause. It also enables some satisfaction here and now from living in the better ways the revolution is for, rather than having to accept that this can only be done in the far distant future after the revolution. Against these claims the Marxist has a powerful counter argument, which is simply that capitalism will not let us succeed. “If your Global Ecovillage Movement ever gets to the point at which it constitutes a threat, they will crush you.” This is obviously a highly plausible argument.

Of course if we were to become a threat they would try to try to get rid of us, but it is not inevitable that they could do this. Firstly our numbers are increasing rapidly as it becomes more obvious that the old system will not provide for all. More important is the very strong probability that the system will run into enormous problems soon, e.g., petroleum and other resource shortages, depression as the vastly inflated share values collapse, ecological collapse, and accelerating Third World problems. I think the prospects for the strategy I’ve argued for are not at all good, but I see it as the best option open to us.

Let us assume that we will inevitably be crushed. We should still try to build example alternatives because if ever again humans get a chance to develop a new society our efforts here and now will have increased the chances that when others try in future they will be more aware of what the sensible way is. They will have access to the records and the histories and the videos which show that The Simpler Way is ecologically sane and yields a high quality of life that all the world’s people could share. We must make sure they a have access to more than theory, i.e., that they can reflect on and be inspired by the experience of real communities which showed that there is a workable and satisfactory way.

Ted Trainer is a Lecturer in Social Work, University of NSW, Australia.

You can read more on his web site: www.arts.unsw.edu.au/socialwork/globalcrisis/01-TSW-Intro-html.html

Chussudowsky, M., (1997), The Globalisation of Poverty, Goldsmith, E., (I997), “Development as colonialism”, in J. Mander and E. Goldsmith, Eds., The Case Against the Global Economy, Schwarz, (1998), Living Lightly, London, Jon Carpenter. Trainer F. E. (T.), 1985, Abandon Affluence, London, Zed Books. Trainer F. E. (T.), 1995a), The Conserver Society; Alternatives for Sustainability, London., Zed Books. Trainer, F. E. (T.), (1995a), The Conserver Society; Alternatives for Sustainability, London, Zed Books. Trainer F., E., (T.), (1995b), Towards a Sustainable Economy, Sydney, Envirobooks. Trainer F. E. (T.), (1998), Saving The Environment; What It Will take, Sydney, University of N.S.W. Press. Trainer, F. E., (T.), What Is To Be Done—Now? (In Press.) Vitousek, P. M., et al., (1986), “Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis”, Biooscience, 34, 6, 368-373. Wachernagle, N., and W. R. Rees, (1995), Our Ecological Footprint, Philadelphia, New Society, 1996.

Ted Trainer is coming to Adelaide, Sunday May 27th, to give a public lecture and hold a workshop on sustainable living, eco-villages and The Simpler Way.

Don’t miss this opportunity! For more information, or to make an advance booking, please e-mail us at events@criticaltimes.com.au. More details in next issue of CT.