This is the second post in a four-part series. The previous post provides pertinent background information, as do the two posts following this one. To better comprehend the scope of our human story, it will help to scan all 12 preceding posts for information explaining the systemic sociocultural, economic, political, and ecological relationships involved with humanity’s unsustainable existential predicament.In ever-increasing urgency, we must continue exploring and discussing all socioecological challenges currently weighing on humanity, and affectively hampering chances of assuring long-term survival. Our main challenge now is to envision ways humanity might proceed in determining a viable path forward in creating a sustainable future.
Major Sociocultural, Economic, and Political Challenges
Aside from problems previously covered, most of which may be attributed to humanity’s hubristic belief in human supremacy, we also must grapple with our collective socioecological predicament, a complex systemic challenge leading experts refer to as a global metacrisis. If we wish to remedy the colossal ecological damages we’ve perpetrated (under the guise of capitalistic, pro-growth, techno-innovative “progress”), we need to acknowledge reality and address some major societal challenges.
In creating a sustainable sociocultural paradigm, we must first decide what kind of human society is needed, in preparation for the formidable goal of creating a resilient, stable, and long-term sustainable existence. There are two principal historical models to consider: domination (authoritarian) and collaboration(partnership). Both are well represented today worldwide.
A society that values a domination worldview exhibits traditional patriarchal and hierarchal societal structures that assure predictability and stability. Such societies are typically governed by an autocratic political system led by a strong-man (or woman) leader. In sharp contrast, societies featuring a collaboration worldview value such qualities as fraternity (alliance and unity), advocacy (mutual support), evidence-based information, flexibility, inclusiveness, and empathy, the kinds of attributes typically associated with egalitarian democratic governance.
Riane Eisler, author of the highly acclaimed book, The Chalice and the Blade, describes these two sociopolitical systems (Partnership and Domination Societies) on the Center for Partnership Systems website. She lists the four core components of the partnership system as gender relations, childhood relations, economic relations, and language-narratives, the goal being to foster equality and cooperation within these fundamental aspects of social life. Other relevant terms for a partnership worldview could also be “cooperation” and/or “collaboration”.
The formation of cooperatives (five types) to achieve common goals has a demonstrably solid record as an effective way for people to have more democratic control over their lives. For certain, challenging the existing domination system and transitioning to a collaborative societal paradigm will require a growing support of willing persons united in pursuing a transformative solidarity movement.
In lieu of proposing specific guidelines, responses, and possible solutions for creating a collaborative human paradigm, it will suffice to suggest that creating a resilient and sustainable human society will require reducing the superfluous complexity that pervades modern life. In addition to reducing material consumption, especially energy use, unessential goods and services, and waste products, human population also needs to shrink. Moreover, all of these areas need to shrink, in size, scale, scope, and speed.
Measures to help reduce the size and power of large corporations could include government policies that abolish corporate personhood, perhaps by placing limits on size and scale of corporations, along with stiff regulations on lobbyists. Instead of favoring the profit-motivated interests of large corporations, government support could be directed towards supporting small-to-medium sized businesses and firms. Studies show that supporting family-owned small businesses helps make communities more resilient and sustainable.
Additionally, rather than depending on outsourced global employment, manufacturing, and energy-intensive supply chains, most businesses and corporations could be placed primarily within Nations, and with neighboring regions and countries, as represented with the reciprocity arrangements between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and also within the European Union. Focusing on developing more local, regional, and national production and distribution of goods and services would go a long way toward developing greater resilience and sustainability worldwide.
A growing consensus among socioecologists supports a serious reevaluation of the U.S.’s standard monetary market-value measure known as gross domestic product (GDP), which includes all goods and services produced by a country within a specific period. The U.S. began using GDP in 1944, and it has remained institutionalized throughout a period of humanity’s unprecedented material growth, and according to a growing core of ecological economists serves as a major driver contributing to our existing global metacrisis (polycrisis). In response, ecological economists and socioecologists advance a more humane option to GDP, something similar to Bhutan’s adopted measurement standard based on Gross National Happiness (GNH).
As distinguished from GDP, GNH places a high value on collective happiness as the goal of governance. A primary emphasis involves living harmoniously with nature and traditional values, as expressed in nine domains of happiness and four pillars: 1) sustainable and equitable socio-economic development; 2) environmental conservation; 3) preservation and promotion of culture; and 4) good governance.
Other economic models deserving consideration include: Green Economy Coalition, Wellbeing Economy Alliance, and Spaceship Earth. I think you’ll agree that humanity needs to adopt a more humane measurement, one that values wellness and wholeness over the accumulation of material possessions.
In discussing the future of civilization and the planet, we cannot (must not) overlook the systemic role of population size as a major socioecological challenge deserving attention. Educated estimates of population experts vary regarding a potentially sustainable population size. Guesstimates for an optimal sustainable population that could provide the most favorable overall quality of life (for all lifeforms) range from 1.5 to 2-billion humans, with two billion receiving the most recommendations. This may seem a drastic shrinkage of human population to readers, but rest assured it’s not. According to the IPAT equation, understanding the connection between population size, consumption, and waste products can be explained using elementary math.
Overpopulation has been a controversial, somewhat taboo social topic, but mostly because of misunderstandings and misinterpretations of available (but unconsidered) information. I concur with population experts who believe it’s high time to confront the issue head on, beginning with rational and open-minded civil discussions. Actually, any topic that affects the health and wellbeing of all planetary life deserves thoughtful consideration. I think you’ll agree that our human superorganism’s impact has been substantial, resulting in overshoot of Earth’s finite resources and tipping points in six of nine planetary boundaries.
This is not the time to elaborate on this topic, but it seems appropriate to briefly identify the main concerns voiced about reducing human population. First, it’s relevant to point out that the primary forces promoting population growth happen to be pro-growth economic advocates of pronatalism, a belief that population growth is essential for ensuring economic “prosperity”, as measured by GDP. Social justice advocates also voice concerns about “population control”, a term associated with such legitimate concerns as eugenics, violation of human rights, forced sterilizations, undue burdens on the global south, and religious-cultural traditions.
Meanwhile, notable socioecological population experts contend that creating a sustainable existence will be possible only if population numbers are lowered over the next few decades. Moreover, achieving a smaller population can be accomplished solely by using humane strategies and measures. A principal strategy involves ramping up the sexual-reproduction education of young people, not only for females but perhaps even more so for males, particularly in patriarchal societies.
Proven measures include birth-control education, appropriate medical care, and family planning for all youth. Government and societal incentives and disincentives may also be needed. For example, one governmental disincentive could disallow tax breaks for couples having more than one child. In contrast, incentives that encourage adoption of orphaned children have proven effective, especially when available to couples with only one biological child, in which case a tax deduction might apply.
My article—A Smaller Human Population for a Sustainable Future—explains many benefits of living in a less human-dominated world. For more information about this sensitive topic, I recommend consulting respectable population organizations advocating only humane strategies to reduce human population, notably Population Balance, Population Connection, Earth Overshoot, and Center for Biological Diversity.
Wrap Up
As we’re learning, when focusing on any single issue or group of issues, envisioning a sustainable future requires thinking both systemically and contextually. Although, we focus mostly on human-sphere concerns in this post and the following post, we need to remain ever mindful of how interconnected we are within the entire ecosphere, a topic to be explored in upcoming posts.
In next week’s post we’ll address equality and equity issues, along with some recommended responses to existing challenges. Meanwhile, I recommend ongoing contemplation of material covered thus far, noting anything you consider overlooked or needs additional input.
Onward. . .
Parts 3 and 4 will be included in the February 2025 issue.
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Clifton Ware, D.M., emeritus professor (voice), professional singer and author of four published books and two unpublished works, retired in 2007 from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities School of Music, where he taught for 37 years. Since retiring, as a self-described socio-ecological philosopher he has spent 15 years focusing on sustainability issues, in the process of acquiring an evidence-based, big-picture understanding of all principal societal and ecological systems, including the symbiotic interconnections and role of humans as an integral part of Nature. In 2013 he founded Citizens for Sustainability in St. Anthony Village, MN, produced Sustainability News + Views (2014-2019), a weekly newsletter featuring a variety of articles and a commentary, co-composed 13 Eco Songs with his wife, Bettye, organized Sustainability Forums, and performed eco-oriented programs and presentations for several organizations.
|
