Mother Pelican
A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability

Vol. 19, No. 11, November 2023 Luis T. Gutiérrez, Editor

Home Page Front Page

World Scientists' Warning: The Behavioural Crisis Driving Ecological Overshoot Joseph J. Merz et al This article was originally published by Science Progress, 20 September 2023 under a Creative Commons License Abstract: Previously, anthropogenic ecological overshoot has been identified as a fundamental cause of the myriad symptoms we see around the globe today from biodiversity loss and ocean acidification to the disturbing rise in novel entities and climate change. In the present paper, we have examined this more deeply, and explore the behavioural drivers of overshoot, providing evidence that overshoot is itself a symptom of a deeper, more subversive modern crisis of human behaviour. We work to name and frame this crisis as ‘the Human Behavioural Crisis’ and propose the crisis be recognised globally as a critical intervention point for tackling ecological overshoot. We demonstrate how current interventions are largely physical, resource intensive, slow-moving and focused on addressing the symptoms of ecological overshoot (such as climate change) rather than the distal cause (maladaptive behaviours). We argue that even in the best-case scenarios, symptom-level interventions are unlikely to avoid catastrophe or achieve more than ephemeral progress. We explore three drivers of the behavioural crisis in depth: economic growth; marketing; and pronatalism. These three drivers directly impact the three ‘levers’ of overshoot: consumption, waste and population. We demonstrate how the maladaptive behaviours of overshoot stemming from these three drivers have been catalysed and perpetuated by the intentional exploitation of previously adaptive human impulses. In the final sections of this paper, we propose an interdisciplinary emergency response to the behavioural crisis by, amongst other things, the shifting of social norms relating to reproduction, consumption and waste. We seek to highlight a critical disconnect that is an ongoing societal gulf in communication between those that know such as scientists working within limits to growth, and those members of the citizenry, largely influenced by social scientists and industry, that must act. Keywords: behaviour, ecological overshoot, scientists warning, pronatalism, marketing, psychology, ecology, economics, population, consumption. Note ~ Due to the lenght of this article, only excerpts are provided in this page. To read the complete article with clickable links to footnotes and references, go to the original article in Science Progress. Introduction Modern humans and millions of other species face an unprecedented number of existential threats due to anthropogenic impacts exceeding our planet's boundaries.1 We are in dangerous territory with instability in the known realms of biosphere integrity, land system change and novel entities such as plastics and synthetic toxins, climate change, freshwater change and biogeochemical flows. Considering the dynamic, closed and interconnected nature of Earth's systems together, these threats pose an increasingly catastrophic risk to all complex life on Earth. Many scientists privately believe it to be already too late to avoid the tipping points that will trigger devastating and irreversible feedback loops.2 It is increasingly acknowledged that all of these threats are symptoms of anthropogenic ecological overshoot. Overshoot is defined as the human consumption of natural resources at rates faster than they can be replenished, and entropic waste production in excess of the Earth's assimilative and processing capacity.3–7 In this paper, we explore the behavioural drivers of overshoot, providing evidence that overshoot is itself a symptom of a deeper, more subversive modern crisis of human behaviour. We work to name and frame this crisis as ‘the Human Behavioural Crisis’ and propose the crisis be recognised globally as a critical intervention point for tackling ecological overshoot. We demonstrate how current interventions are largely physical, resource intensive, slow-moving and focused on addressing the symptoms of ecological overshoot (such as climate change) rather than the distal cause (maladaptive behaviours). We argue that even in the best-case scenarios, symptom-level interventions are unlikely to avoid catastrophe or achieve more than ephemeral progress. In the final sections of this paper, we propose an interdisciplinary emergency response to the behavioural crisis by, amongst other things, the shifting of social norms relating to reproduction, consumption and waste. We seek to highlight a critical disconnect that is an ongoing societal gulf in communication between those that know such as scientists working within limits to growth, and those members of the citizenry, largely influenced by social scientists and industry, that must act. Scientists working in limits to growth must join forces with social scientists not only in academia but critically with the non-academic practitioners of applied social and behavioural science. Not only are such practitioners demonstrated masters in the theory of driving behaviour change but crucially also masters of the practical implementation of that theory in the real world. Lastly, we will provide a possible frame through which to view our species’ ability to consciously drive large-scale behavioural change as an opportunity unavailable to most other species. An implementation of such a framework limiting widespread maladaptive behavioural manipulation may ensure human appetites remain within planetary boundaries, and be key in unlocking a truly prosperous and sustainable future for H. sapiens on Earth. This paper is not intended to be an exhaustive roadmap to address the behavioural crisis, instead it should be taken as a call to action for interdisciplinary collaboration to achieve just that. Scope In this paper, aside from reproductive behaviours which we mention below, our focus is largely confined to socially constructed attitudes, values and behaviours that encourage unnecessary personal consumption, and which have led the world into a state of overshoot. This focus is critical because, to date, a mere quarter of humanity – the wealthy quarter – is responsible for 74% of excess energy and material use.8 This, when taken alone, is sufficient to propel the human enterprise into overshoot. To read the complete section, go to the original article in Science Progress. Previous scientists’ warnings The initial ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity’ was published in 1992,18 starkly emphasising the collision between human demands and the regenerative capacity of the biosphere. It was followed by a further report, ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice’19 which confirmed that the intervening 25 years had merely accelerated environmental destruction driven by a global population increasing by more than 40% – some 2 billion humans. The ‘World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency’ report,20 so far endorsed by 14,859 scientists from 158 countries, proposed a range of measures for restoring and protecting natural ecosystems, conserving energy, reducing pollutants, reducing food waste, adopting more plant-based diets, stabilising population and reforming the global economy. To read the complete section, go to the original article in Science Progress. Human behaviour drives overshoot The main drivers of anthropogenic ecological overshoot are human behaviours and cultures relating to consumption8,28 and population dynamics.31,34 These two factors are mathematically, though certainly not linearly, related. Like other species, H. sapiens is capable of exponential population growth (positive feedback) but until recently, major expansions of the human enterprise, including increases in consumption and waste, were held in check by negative feedback – e.g. resource shortages, competition and disease – which naturally curbed continued population growth.7 H. sapiens took around 250,000 years to reach a global population of 1 billion in 1820, and just over 200 years to go from 1 billion to 8 billion. This was largely made possible by our species’ access to cheap, easy, exosomatic energy, mainly fossil fuels. Fossil fuels enabled us to reduce negative feedback (e.g. food shortages) and thus delay and evade the consequences of surpassing natural limits. In that same 200 year period, fossil energy (FF) use increased 1300-fold, fueling a 100-fold increase in real gross world product, i.e. consumption, and the human enterprise is still expanding exponentially.7 We are arguably in the late boom phase of a one-off boom-bust cycle that is driving us rapidly beyond the safe harbour of planetary boundaries towards chaotic collapse and worse (Figure 1).5,7 Figure 1. Ecological overshoot in number of Earths required. Data from Global Footprint Network – June 2023. Click on the image to enlarge. To read the complete section, go to the original article in Science Progress. Drivers of overshoot behaviour The evolutionary drive to acquire resources is by no means exclusive to the human animal. In H. sapiens however, the behaviours of overshoot are now actively promoted and exacerbated by social, economic and political norms largely through the intentional, almost completely unimpeded exploitation of human psychological predispositions and biases. Here, we explore what we consider to be three critical drivers in the creation and continuation of the human behavioural crisis. Economic growth... Marketing... Pronatalism... To read the complete section, go to the original article in Science Progress. Tackling the behavioural crisis Current interventions at the symptom-level often do more to maintain the status quo than to address the drivers of ecological overshoot. Accepted approaches are generally technological interventions requiring immense amounts of raw materials and generating proportional ecological damage. For example, the much-hyped wholesale transition of our energy systems from fossil fuels to renewables would require daunting levels of raw material and fossil fuels in a futile struggle to meet humanity's ever-growing demands.69–72 Even if successful – which is not likely73 – the energy transition would address only a single symptom of ecological overshoot, likely worsening other symptoms significantly in the process. As noted earlier, it is humanity's access to cheap, convenient energy that has allowed us to overshoot many planetary boundaries.7,74 Would anything else change simply because we substitute one form of energy for another? To read the complete section, go to the original article in Science Progress. Directing and policing widespread behaviour manipulation Behavioural manipulation has been intentionally used for nefarious purposes before, and as we’ve just explored, has played a critical role in the creation of the behavioural crisis and consequential ecological overshoot. Eco-centric behaviour is the heart of any sustainable future humanity might wish to achieve. Moreover, we are at a crossroads, with three paths ahead: We can choose to continue using behavioural manipulation to deepen our dilemma, We can choose to ignore it and leave it to chance, or We can use an opportunity that almost no other species has had and consciously steer our collective behaviours to conform to the natural laws that bind all life on Earth. To read the complete section, go to the original article in Science Progress. Conclusion In summary, the evidence indicates that anthropogenic ecological overshoot stems from a crisis of maladaptive human behaviours. While the behaviours generating overshoot were once adaptive for H. sapiens, they have been distorted and extended to the point where they now threaten the fabric of complex life on Earth. Simply, we are trapped in a system built to encourage growth and appetites that will end us. The current emphasis for overshoot intervention is resource intensive (e.g. the global transition to renewable energy) and single-symptom focused. Indeed, most mainstream attention and investment is directed towards mitigating and adapting to climate change. Even if this narrow intervention is successful, it will not resolve the meta-crisis of ecological overshoot, in fact, with many of the current resource-intensive interventions, it is likely to make matters worse. Psychological interventions are likely to prove far less resource-intensive and more effective than physical ones. We call for increased attention on the behavioural crisis as a critical intervention point for addressing overshoot and its myriad symptoms. We advocate increased interdisciplinary collaboration between the social and behavioural science theorists and practitioners, advised by scientists working on limits to growth and planetary boundaries. We call for additional research to develop a full understanding of the many dimensions of the behavioural crisis (including the overwhelming influence of power structures) and how we can best address it. We call for an emergency, concerted, multidisciplinary effort to target the populations and value levers most likely to produce rapid global adoption of new consumption, reproduction and waste norms congruent with the survival of complex life on Earth. We call for increased interdisciplinary work to be carried out in directing, understanding and policing widespread behaviour manipulation. The clock is ticking not only because the health of the natural systems upon which we are utterly dependent is deteriorating but also because broadscale interventions are only possible when a society holds together and is capable of coherent action. As the effects of overshoot worsen, the likelihood of societal breakdown increases. We still have an opportunity to be proactive and utilise the intact systems we have in place to deliver a framework for shifting social norms and other necessities for addressing the behavioural crisis. However, the day may come when societal breakdown will make intervention impossible, locking the planet into an unguided recovery that may salvage much of ‘nature’ but be inhospitable to human life. To read the complete section, go to the original article in Science Progress. Note 1. We are aware that the term ‘behavioural crisis’ may be misunderstood by those familiar with government health department terminology, in which behavioural health is often specifically applied to addiction and mental health crises and disorders such as substance abuse, eating disorders and self-injury (University of Massachusetts Global undated). But this is not our usage of the term. References For the list of references, see the original article in Science Progress. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Joseph J Merzhttps, Merz Institute, Whitianga, New Zealand; Stable Planet Alliance, Calabasas, USA. Phoebe Barnard, Stable Planet Alliance, Calabasas, USA; University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; African Climate and Development Initiative and FitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa. William E Rees, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Dane Smith, Ogilvy, London, UK. Mat Maroni, Merz Institute, Whitianga, New Zealand. Christopher J Rhodes, Fresh-lands Environmental Actions, Reading, UK. Julia H Dederer, Merz Institute, Whitianga; New Zealand, Stable Planet Alliance, Calabasas, USA; Foundation for Climate Restoration, Los Altos, CA, USA. Nandita Bajaj, Stable Planet Alliance, Calabasas, USA; Antioch University, Yellow Springs, OH, USA; Population Balance, Saint Paul, MN, USA. Michael K Joy, Merz Institute, Whitianga, New Zealand; Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. Thomas Wiedmann, Sustainability Assessment Program, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Rory Sutherland, Merz Institute, Whitianga, New Zealand. For author biographies, see the original article in Science Progress. |Back to Title| LINK TO THE CURRENT ISSUE          LINK TO THE HOME PAGE

GROUP COMMANDS AND WEBSITES Write to the Editor Send email to Subscribe Send email to Unsubscribe Link to the Group Website Link to the Home Page

CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE ISSN 2165-9672