Degrowth, as defined in this article, is not an existing ideology. In this article, ‘Degrowth’ describes a mindset which aspires to peacefully and equitably reduce global consumption, with the hope that humanity can repair its long history of anthropogenic ecological overshoot and survive this punishing period of climate breakdown and ecosystems collapse. We can refer to this state of consciousness as the ‘radical Degrowth mindset’.
This radical Degrowth mindset has been achieved by several individuals, but it does not represent the general teaching from the Degrowth movement. The leaders in the Degrowth movement are attempting to build an ideology that does not openly recognise that reducing Gross World Product (GWP) is a prerequisite to achieving sustainability. The mainstream leaders within the Degrowth movement do not publicise the fact that humanity are exceeding the carrying capacity of Earth; neither do they claim that humanity need to reduce GWP equitably to repair our extensive global ecological debts. However, many in the Degrowth movement are now starting to realise that shrinking global GWP is an essential step in any attempt to transition to sustainable lifestyles.
For humanity to steer itself strategically, and peacefully, in the direction of equitable, economic Degrowth, it is helpful to analyse the awareness levels required to achieve the shift into the radical Degrowth mindset. Before we do this analysis, we must first consider how a human assesses their personal future.
Modelling the FutureA healthy and mature human, always has a model of their immediate future in their mind. The logistics of every move that we make, requires constant assessment of what we are moving into. Most of an adult’s life is spent being fairly confident about the near-term future, with an increased haziness about predictability as we look further into the future. By the time adulthood is reached, there is usually considerable conformance to the pre-existing cultural values of the society into which the person was born.
Occasionally traumatic events arise which directly affect the life of an individual or a group. These events often restrict the choices of the individuals involved significantly. Traumatic events break the pattern of their routine and can profoundly influence the choices that they make moving forward.
In every human’s life, there are big and little decisions to be made every step of the way; both with regards to individual and collective decision-making. As we grow older, our decision-making is inclined to become less adventurous, more influenced by past experience and the cultural norms of our society rather than the changing influences around us. We become less able to adapt to external changes. The ongoing decision-making process determines the direction of each step that we take, both as an individual and as collective groups. So, even if we see danger ahead, we often prefer to persevere with our habitual approach to addressing problems, even if they do not appear to be working any more.
Unusual extremes are now increasing globally. Climate breakdown and ecosystems collapse are causing pandemics, extreme weather events, civil unrest, financial instability, migration, increased violence, and the increased likelihood of squabbles and wars as people compete over resources. In this context of escalating uncertainty, the chances of a collective decision to change direction is increasing.
Choosing our DirectionEven without learning about Newton’s law of gravity, we all soon learn that it is not beneficial to our wellbeing if we freely choose to jump off a cliff without first arranging some sort of parachute.
There are some important natural laws, and limitations on Earth, which do not manifest in the human consciousness as readily as the force of gravity; their global effect is now becoming increasingly obvious to anyone who follows the global news. Any individual familiar with the relevant insights will understand more profoundly than their peers the key drivers that affect the biophysics that support life on Earth. Those who acquire this more profound understanding, will more readily appreciate the dangerous situation that currently faces humanity as a whole.
Therefore, a person whose consciousness is enriched with certain scientifically agreed information, is more likely to adopt a mindset which is inclined to favour global equitable, economic Degrowth; if that option ever becomes available. Currently (October 2023) the economic Degrowth option is not on offer anywhere in the world; so it is hard to tell how far humanity have moved in this mindset shift so far. However, there are many indications that the shift is already underway.
Emergence of the Radical Degrowth MindsetThis section lists the key levels of awareness that are essential ingredients within a human mind, before that person becomes able to conclude that the ambition of global, equitable, economic Degrowth is in their personal interest.
There are six key awareness requirements for the radical Degrowth mindset to emerge:
i) Awareness that a reliable climate and healthy ecosystems are necessary for human wellbeing. Awareness that these conditions enable us to grow food, and ensure an adequate supply of fresh water for day to day subsistence.
ii) Awareness that our future will look nothing like our past. This requires an appreciation that our climate and our ecosystems have already diverged significantly from past experience. A recognition that the passing of climate tipping points means that this divergence from past experience is set to amplify at an exponential rate.
iii) Awareness that the previous Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum occurred over 20,000 to 50,000 years. Anthropogenic global warming is escalating rapidly within decades. This means that scale and speed of existential changes will greatly exceed anything experienced previously by life on Earth, far too fast for the evolutionary process to keep up.
iv) Awareness of the I=PAT insights which identify the key drivers of climate breakdown and ecosystems collapse, as population size, affluence and dependence on technology.
v) Awareness that our energy demands are constantly increasing, as anticipated through the insights of the Jevons paradox.
vi) Awareness that humanity are exceeding the carrying capacity of Earth by 300%. This risk is global and is now destabilising the global economy. A radical collaborative, equitable economic Degrowth strategy would soften the collapse and might, in time, redeem this chronic ecological debt to the extent that a fairly steady-state sustainable economy might be achieved. Thermal runaway is estimated to kick in at 3–4 degrees of warming above preindustrial levels.
At the time of writing (October 2023), an individual who has acquired all six insights will feel isolated. This perspective is diametrically opposed to the direction of the herd. Humanity is still stampeding in the direction of economic growth. The biophysical collapse is being exacerbated by our frantic attempts to fix the problems that arise from economic growth with more economic growth.
It is frightening to maintain a worldview so contrary to that agreed by all our peers. We are social animals, we collaborate, and we look to our peers to agree our collective direction. Therefore, at the moment, the radical Degrowth mindset requires considerable courage for any individual to maintain such a worldview, despite the escalating evidence that we urgently need to change direction.
Thus, not only does the individual need to absorb the six levels of awareness detailed above, but they also need to have the personal self-confidence and courage to adopt a mindset that is diametrically opposed to the direction of the rest of the global herd.
Clearly, growing Gross World Product is not wise in the current context, because it exacerbates all the existential challenges. Increasing population size, affluence and technology are all unwise pursuits in the context of escalating climate breakdown an ecosystems collapse. Our current trajectory is still trying to increase Gross World Product. The radical Degrowth mindset recognises that the chosen direction of the herd is both ecocidal and suicidal. Many people may already realise this, but they are likely to be afraid to share their concerns with their peers who are still operating within the growth mindset.
Until these insights are shared and understood widely, then those who already have the radical Degrowth mindset described above, have no public voice. Radical Degrowthers will continue to feel very isolated, until a tipping point in numbers is reached and somewhere in the world a government finds the courage to suggest the collective change in direction to focus on equitable Degrowth. This will light the match, and then we shall rapidly see all of those who have already acquired the awareness described above, suddenly emerging from their hiding places. The paradigm shift to radical Degrowth will then begin in earnest.
Ideology and Ethics of DegrowthThe awareness required to inspire the radical GWP Degrowth mindset described above, needs to become widespread before any appropriate ideology or set of ethics can begin to emerge to steer the ‘Degrowth’ phase in human development. The Degrowth phase is an interim strategy; it is the essential intermediate stage necessary for a genuine hope of achieving steady-state sustainability at some point in the future. There is a risk that the situation is already too far gone to salvage. However, if enough people acquire the radical Degrowth mindset, this will provide the collective courage to challenge all the dogma and the cultural conditioning that, at the moment, are preventing any genuine progress towards softening the ecosystems collapse.
How Widespread is the Degrowth Mindset at the moment?The Degrowth movement has many names: Beyond Growth, Post Growth, Wellbeing. A separate Medium article ‘Degrowth for Dummies’ gives an overview of the Degrowth movement at this point in time. It is growing very rapidly. It is awash with torturous intellectualisation written by academics determined to stay firmly within the prevailing mindset which perpetuates global economic growth and increasing global population size. For example this paper on Ecopoeisis.
Having once acquired the radical Degrowth mindset, the urgency of our predicament is overwhelming and terrifying. It totally changes a person’s perception about behaviours that had gone unchallenged during their growth-mindset past. Some examples follow below, of the ethical dilemmas that arise once an individual or group recognises that growth economics is not helpful for collective wellbeing.
Burning Fossil-fuels for FunMany of the leisure pursuits and most of the non-essential commercial enterprises in affluent societies come with a high eco-cost. The radical Degrowth mindset recognises that we all pay the eco-cost for this irresponsible waste of resources and the environmental damage incurred. The radical Degrowth mindset seeks to minimise consumption of resources. The Pope has recently shown evidence that he has an emerging radical Degrowth mindset by speaking out about ‘irresponsible Western lifestyles’.
Eco-costly Health and Social CareSomeone with the Degrowth mindset might view the lockdown and vaccination regime that was introduced in the COVID pandemic through a very different lens. The whole of the COVID strategy came with a high eco-cost. The vaccinations only helped to extend the lives of the affluent, i.e. the most eco-costly section of the global population. We also introduced huge amounts of pollution into the environment by using so much Personal Protection Equipment.
All medical care that serves only to prolong life regardless of the eco-cost involved, might be viewed through a different lens. This type of eco-costly end-of-life care is only available in affluent countries; the ecological consequences are borne globally. This is an example of the huge ecological injustice that is perpetuated when we pursue GDP growth.
Having Children to Look After Us in Our Old AgeWas it ever ethical to consider children as resources for our benefit? Encouraging childbirth has often been used as a tool for eugenics and economic growth the world over, both of these motivations have always been questionable. In an escalating extinction event, we need to question the ethics of having children at all; our situation is so very unsafe. As yet, we have not taken even the first step in the radical Degrowth direction, so the prospects for all of us are poor. We have no stable climate or healthy ecosystems to offer our new born. At the moment, the Human Right to a sustainable environment is not being met for anyone.
Legal Rights and Fair Resource DistributionThose with the radical Degrowth mindset might well ask “How entitled are individuals to their money, technology and the land that they own?”. The insights from I=PAT inform us that amassing wealth and technology involves inflicting ecological damage. Therefore the rich, and those who have used their money to purchase large swathes of land, might be seen to owe an historic ecological debt.
Providing everyone with enough to subsist, is key to minimising climate and economic migration. A Universal Basic Provision would allow people to cease all the non-essential commerce and services that are ecologically damaging. This recent paper assessing rationing as a means to achieve climate mitigation, probably offers the simplest route towards sharing limited resources fairly within the global village. There is a separate article that suggests how this might begin to be financed.
War and PeaceThe ecological costs of war are very high, especially nuclear war. The radical Degrowth mindset recognises that peaceful global collaboration, and global Universal Basic Provision are both key to survival. It also allows us to reconsider the concept of what constitutes ‘peace’. The need to redefine the meaning of ‘peace’ in a radical Degrowth world is explored in the next section.
Conflict Resolution in a Radical Degrowth WorldThe discussion that follows here was inspired by SmartSettle.com, who are using AI to apply an algorithm to help to settle peace negotiations. The algorithm will have been written with our current interpretation of ‘peace’, therefore it would need tweaking to meet the needs of a radical Degrowth world in which global economic growth is recognised as undesirable.
For those individuals who have never been directly involved in military conflict, the concept of ‘living in peace’ is usually interpreted as meaning that ‘business-as-usual can continue smoothly’. For people living in countries that have long-established unchallenged oppressive regimes, it often means that they desire a continuation of that oppressive regime; they often feel secure and conditioned to that way of governance. For people from countries in conflict, it might mean the ability to return to their homeland, or the ability to subsist without experiencing violence or oppression from other humans.
Unfortunately, in the current context of escalating collapse in Earth’s life support systems, the desire to continue ‘business-as-usual’ is linked to the ecocidal growth economics which is causing the collapse. This means that resource wars are increasingly likely, and the means to settle them to anyone’s satisfaction are increasingly unachievable. Therefore, we need to rethink exactly what we mean by when we use the word ‘peace’.
‘Peace’ redefinedIf Earth’s ecosystems had a seat at every human negotiating table, we would hear Mother Nature pleading for a chance to recover from the excessive injuries inflicted from our ‘business-as-usual’. Any peace for humanity needs to include space and time for Mother Nature to heal her wounds.
In this respect, the proposed UN Charter for Ecological Justice serves as a global peace treaty. It represents a quantifiable ambition to peacefully return the global civilization within the carrying capacity of Earth. We are currently exceeding the carrying capacity of Earth by 300%. This is a very unsafe context. Shrinking the global economy by 75% is a prerequisite to global safety and sustainability. Once we all understand the need for this global aspiration, the UN will agree to ratify it. From then on, all our decision-making is driven by ecological costs rather than financial costs.
Some of the Sustainable Development Goals will need to be reframed to reflect the urgent need to equitably reduce our impact on ecosystems. A rewrite of SDG8: ‘Decent work and economic growth’ has been suggested.
A voluntary global birth strike would be encouraged and facilitated as the realisation spreads about the urgency and high level of risk posed by thermal runaway at 3-4 degrees of warming above preindustrial levels.
The Earth Systems Treaty is helpful in its breadth, and the way that it pulls together many initiatives that have emerged over the years which are steering in the direction of peacefully sharing the resources on our planet. However, we still need to share the radical Degrowth mindset to provide a shared ambition to shrink the global economy back within the carrying capacity of Earth. Otherwise, the ecosystems collapse will continue to accelerate; and the resources available on Earth will never be adequate to meet our needs in a sustainable manner.
![[groups_small]](groups_small.gif)