We can't go on living like this

We say we want to save the environment, and to have peace, and to eliminate poverty. And we do - but only until we see what this requires.

The fundamental cause of the big global problems threatening us now is simply over-consumption. The rate at which we in rich countries are using up resources is grossly unsustainable. It’s far beyond levels that can be kept up for long or that could be spread to all people. Yet most people totally fail to grasp the magnitude of the over-shoot.

The reductions required are so big that they cannot be achieved within a consumer-capitalist society. Huge and extremely radical change to very systems and culture are necessary.

Several lines of argument lead to this conclusion, but I’ll note only three.

Some resources are already alarmingly scarce, including water, land, fish and especially petroleum. Some geologists think petroleum supply will peak within a decade. If all the world’s people today were to consume resources at the per capita rate we in rich countries do, the annual supply rate would have to be more than six times as great as at present, and if the population of 9 billion we will have on earth soon were to do so it would have to be about ten times as great.

Second, the per capita area of productive land needed to supply one Australian with food, water, settlements and energy, is about 7-8 ha. The US figure is closer to 12 ha. But the average per capita area of productive land available on the planet is only about 1.3 ha. When the world population reaches 9 billion the per capita area of productive land available will be only 0.8 ha. In other words in a world where resources were shared equally we would all have to get by on about 10 per cent of the present average Australian footprint.

Third, the greenhouse problem is the most powerful and alarming illustration of the overshoot. The scientists are telling us that if we are to stop the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere from reaching twice the pre-industrial level we must cut global carbon emissions, and thus fossil fuel use, by 60 per cent in the short term, and more later.

If we cut it 60 per cent and shared the remaining energy among 9 billion people each Australian would have to get by on less than 5 per cent of the fossil fuel now used. And that target, a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is much too high to be safe. We’re now 30 per cent above pre-industrial levels and already seeing disturbing climatic effects.

These lines of argument show we must face up to enormous reductions in rich world resource use, perhaps by 90 per cent, if we’re to solve the big global problems. This is not possible in a society that’s committed to the affluent lifestyles that require high energy and resource use.

Now all that only makes clear that the present situation is grossly unsustainable. But this society is fundamentally and fiercely obsessed with raising levels of production and consumption all the time, as fast as possible, and without any limit. In other words our supreme, sacred, never-questioned goal is economic growth. We’re already at impossible levels of production and consumption but our top priority is to go on increasing them all the time.

If we in Australia average 3 per cent growth to 2070 and by then the 9 billion people expected on earth have all risen to the living standards we would then have, total world economic output each year would be 60 times as great as it is now. Yet the present level is grossly unsustainable.

The foregoing comment has only been about ecological and resource sustainability and our society is also built on a second deeply flawed foundation. We have an extremely unjust global economy. It’s a market economy and that means scarce things go to those who can pay most for them, which means, to the rich and not to the poor. So the few in rich countries gobble up most of the world’s resource production.

Even more important, in a market economy what’s developed is what’s most profitable not what most needed. So the development that takes place in the Third World is development of what will maximise the profits of corporations. Look at any Third World country and you see a lot of development but most of it is putting their resources into producing to stock our rich world supermarkets, and little or none goes into the industries that will produce the basic necessities the majority of poor people need. Conventional development is therefore well described as a process of plunder.

Rich countries go to a lot of trouble to maintain a global economy that works in their interests, including using aid, Structural Adjustment Packages, arms sales, support for friendly dictators, and outright invasion. Our living standard in countries like Australia could not be anywhere near as high as it is if these processes did not occur and we had to get by on our fair share of the world’s resources.

What then is the answer? If the question is: how can we run a sustainable and just consumer-capitalist society? the point is that there isn’t any answer. That cannot be done.

We cannot achieve a sustainable and just society unless we face up to huge and radical transition to what some identify as The Simpler Way: that is to a society based on non-affluent but adequate living standards; high levels of self-sufficiency; small scale localised economies with little trade and no growth; co-operative and participatory communities; an economy that’s not driven by market forces and profit; and most difficult of all, a society that’s not motivated by competition, individualism and acquisitiveness.

Many have argued that this general vision is the only way out of the mess we’re in.

The biggest problem of all is our failure, our refusal to even recognise that the pursuit of affluence and growth is a terrible mistake. Despite our vast educational systems, information technologies and media networks, despite having hoardes of academics and experts, there is almost no official or public recognition that the quest for affluence and growth might be the basic cause of our alarming global predicament. There is no recognition of any need to move to The Simpler Way. These themes are almost never even mentioned in the media, educational curricula, or government pronouncements.

We are dealing here with a fascinating and powerful ideological phenomenon, a failure, indeed a refusal to even think about the possibility that we are sitting on the railway tracks and there is a train fast approaching. It would be difficult to imagine a more profound case of wilful mass denial and delusion.

Toynbee analysed the fate of civilisations in terms of their capacity to respond to challenges. What then are our prospects, given that we cannot even recognise that we are committed to fatally mistaken goals?

The greatest tragedy is that we could quickly and easily move to sustainable and just ways - if we wanted to. Essentially that would involve people in suburbs and towns getting together to organise simple but sufficient lifestyles within mostly small, local economies, with small farms and firms using local resources and labour to produce to meet local needs. The economy would not be driven by profit maximisation or market forces, and there would have to be no economic growth at all.

The Simpler Way could be a far more satisfying way of life. Consider being able to live well on two days work for money a week, without any threat of unemployment, or insecurity in old age, in a supportive community. To the conventional mind such claims are insanely impossible, but you might take a look at the detail on The Simpler Way website below before you decide.

These are the kinds of conditions that thousands of people enjoy in eco-villages around the world. Many of these communities are trying to demonstrate the alternative ways to which the mainstream can move. Our chances or persuading the mainstream to them in a society obsessed with growth and affluence would seem to be very poor.

I believe we are now entering a time of rapidly intensifying problems which will impact heavily on the comfort and complacency of consumer society. The coming peak of petroleum supply might concentrate minds wonderfully, but I think we are in for a catastrophic century. Some of the people at www.dieoff.com believe around three billion will perish.

For 50 years you have been told about all this, by many scientists and reports. You have taken not the slightest bit of notice. This indicates that you do not have the wit nor the will to save yourselves. Your chances in the next few decades will depend very much on whether your region manages to build local economies, and whether the people living there are willing to shift to frugal, cooperative and self-sufficient ways. Just ask yourself, when oil becomes very scarce, what shape will you wish your neighbourhood was in? Well you had better get out there and start remaking it.