• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1213 0

poorly in the future and eventually wobble and fall. To counter this, we will need new forms of money, possibly several, that can operate tolerably well in a world without growth, along with people to manage them. Fortunately, several new forms of money already exist, including mutual credit arrangements (such as LET systems),3 demurrage money,4 and various forms of money that are backed by something tangible. If we were to put more of these kinds of currency into play alongside our current form of money, then we would have a more resilient ecosystem of money, where if one form gets into difficulty of some sort, there are others waiting to pick up the slack. If a single currency is like a concrete channel designed to carry the maximum amount of water, multiple currencies are like wetlands designed to maximize the buffering of the water levels in times of both drought and flood.

The very first step, however, needs to begin with the idea that you cannot possibly borrow more than you earn forever. The implication of this is that the U.S. government will need to cut spending to bring it in line with the actual economic realities that will result from “too much debt” and a looming resource predicament. The entire U.S. society needs to “deleverage”—a fancy word for “cut debt”—and begin to live more carefully within its true earning potential. We already know this; there are dozens of well-constructed models, books, and research papers showing that current spending is unsustainable. But it bears reminding—and begs for action.

Population

We cannot beat around the bush on this “third-rail” topic any longer: We need to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained. If we don’t, then nature will do it for us, and not pleasantly, either. This means stabilizing world population in perpetuity, not only for a little while longer. We may not know what this stable level is just yet, and more study is certainly needed, especially in light of declining energy resources. But we should do everything we can to avoid badly overshooting the number of humans that can be sustainably supported on our planet while carelessly avoiding an examination of the role of petroleum in supporting those populations.

According to the work of professor William Rees, humans are operating well past the Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity, which is a function of two things: the number of humans on the earth and their standards of living.5 According to this work, every organism has an ecological footprint, and humans now require the equivalent of 1.4 Earths to sustain themselves. There are only two ways to solve this problem: reduce the number of people or lower living standards. If those are our options, would we prefer to have fewer people in the world enjoying elevated standards of living, or more people in the world with reduced standards of living? In other words, would we prefer prosperity or growth? Saying “both” is the same thing as saying “growth,” because in the battle between growth and prosperity, growth always wins.

Kicking and Screaming

What we need more than anything is to reshape the stories that we tell ourselves. Right now the “growth is essential” story is firmly lodged in our national and global narratives, and so that’s what we get—policies and actions that chase growth. If instead we shared a story that placed “long-term prosperity” as our highest goal, then we would hopefully get different actions and results.

But waiting for politicians to arrive at this new story on their own isn’t a compelling strategy. As we look back across the long sweep of history and note when the status quo was challenged and changed, we would find that such change was never intended by those in the center to radiate outward. Every single social gain of note—labor rights, civil rights, women’s rights, the environmental movement, or any other that you care to think of—began on the periphery of society and was brought, kicking and screaming, to the center.

If it seems as though I’m suggesting that a social movement is needed,