Mother Pelican
A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability

Vol. 21, No. 5, May 2025 Luis T. Gutiérrez, Editor

Home Page Front Page

De-Growth ~ Transitional Future Visions ~ Post-Capitalism, Eco-socialism, Simplicity, Prospective De-Growth Impacts Clifton Ware This article was originally published in two parts Part1, Clif Ware's Substack, 9 April 2025, and Part 2, Clif Ware's Substack, 16 April 2025 REPUBLISHED WITH PERMISSION Click the image to enlarge. Part 1 ~ Post-Capitalism, Eco-socialism, and Sustainable Simplicity Recap This post is the third in a series devoted to exploring prominent long-term future visions of life on a finite planet under siege – by us! The previous two posts focus on Pro-Growth Future Visions: Part 1 on the pro-growth influences of modernity; and Part 2 on the three futuristic concepts of ecomodernism: green growth, accelerationism, and techno-utopianism. Readers may tire of my recommending previous posts for relevant background information, but it does help to scan and/or skim for additional applicable material. In this case, the previous two posts explain the rationale for subsequent posts related to future visions, including this one. Hopeful Visions – a Cautionary Tale The term “hopeful visions” is used here as a cautionary principle. No matter how much we wish to believe that anything is possible for humanity to achieve, we are bound by Mother Nature’s responses to ongoing evolutionary conditions and influences. It’s hard for us to accept that we cannot control our destiny 100%, so a strong dose of humility is needed as we seek a transitional path to a potentially sustainable future. All the while, we must accept that some things lie beyond our willful control. For instance, though unlikely, a major socioecological collapse could occur at some future time, perhaps sooner than we expect. The catalyst may well be a global catastrophic disaster – an asteroid strike, a powerful solar flare, a nuclear war, a major plague, etc. – each capable of leading to a global socioecological collapse within a relatively short timeframe. Undeniably, any such cataclysmic event would present a worst-case scenario. Instead, the chances are that unintended de-growth patterns will proceed slowly, perhaps over decades. In fact, while collapse has occurred over time in various regions, the outcome of plagues, wars, climate conditions, and so on, there are increasing signs of both collapsing and collapsed socioecological systems today, mostly the result of overpopulation in regions incapable of providing sufficient sustenance for all native lifeforms. In such overstressed environments, people may only be able to cope effectively when receiving the assistance of international humanitarian groups and programs, as prominently evidenced with the ongoing destruction of Gaza and its population. Every day media reporting reveals overstressed humanitarian organizations experiencing a deluge of demanding needs but depleting sources of life-sustaining aid. The cuts in USAID by the DOGE crew represent the most shocking example of reduced international aid by any contributing country. Post-Capitalism, Eco-socialism, and Sustainable Simplicity We now turn to the second category of three future visions, a mostly transitional de-growth future path that may take anywhere from a couple of decades to a century, depending on global socioecological conditions and humanity’s choices. All de-growth forms unanimously emphasize the need for humans to reduce material consumption and waste, a goal and process that requires a progressive, strategic-planned reduction in economic growth and material consumption. The de-growth long-term goal is to generate a stable well-being society capable of remaining sustainable within planetary material limits. De-growth proponents tend to be optimistically hopeful that, despite the apparent deterioration of bio-ecological systems, along with society’s growing polarization and geopolitical conflicts, it may yet be possible to create a more sustainable existence. That is, if humanity collectively adopts an intentionally planned de-growth trajectory. The three forms of de-growth deserving attention are post-capitalism, eco-socialism, and sustainable simplicity . Post-Capitalism is a partially hypothetical future economic system that transcends pro-growth capitalism. As capitalism continues to grow more dysfunctional in a world beset by an emerging metacrisis, it may become obsolete. For instance, it could be replaced by post-capitalistic models that evolve spontaneously, spurred by responses related to advancing technological innovations and initiatives to manage worsening global climate conditions and deteriorating ecological systems. In his book Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future (free download), Journalist-writer Paul Mason argues that information technology is driving a shift away from traditional capitalism, potentially leading to a new economic system. Other socioeconomic models are available to replace capitalism, the most obvious ones being socialism, anarchism, and nationalism. Of course, each of these forms exist today in varying formats and scale. Several types of socialism continue functioning successfully, particularly in European countries. Renewed forms of nationalism are resurging politically, largely in response to rising socioeconomic dissatisfaction among the general population. This is especially the case for persons identifying as conservatives and traditionalists, including religious fundamentalists and libertarians. Eco-Socialism is an ideology that merges aspects of socialism with other similar forms, like green politics and ecology. Eco-socialists generally believe that repressive states and transnational structures are responsible for employing globalization and imperialism in powering expansion of the capitalist system, which they consider the root cause of war, poverty, social exclusion, and environmental degradation Simply stated, the current capitalistic pro-growth economic system is fundamentally incompatible with the socioecological requirements of sustainability. Thus, the concept of sustainable development, as a goal and process aimed at meeting the needs of present beings without compromising the needs and demands of future beings, is incompatible with the structural capacities of capitalism. A previous post – What Does Sustainability Mean? – provides additional information. Accordingly, market-based solutions such as environmental economics and green economy are not deemed appropriate technical responses for dealing with capitalism's structural failures in addressing ecological crises. Instead, eco-socialists believe the only sufficient response to the existing socioecological metacrisis is an egalitarian socioeconomic political structure designed to harmonize human society with the bio-ecological sphere. As such, this may be the only viable path towards creating a sustainable existence, at least for a reduced future human global population existing in fewer livable regions. Sustainable Simplicity, a concept epitomized by E.F. Schumacher’s book, Small is Beautiful, is founded on a back-to-basics way of living in a chaotic, constantly changing world. In dedication to living sustainably, supporters focus on projects that advance causes like renewable energy, growing food, reducing unessential consumption, and making everyday household products from scratch using natural ingredients. Several R-words are widely observed as guidelines for constructive eco- activism, notably reducing, reusing, recycling, restoring, rejuvenating, restraining, and more. More R-word applications are presented in a previous 5-part series devoted to Designing a Sustainable Future. Sustainability challenges are presented to all humans. No matter what type of living situation – a city apartment, a homesteader, or a dwelling on large acreage – anyone can live a simpler, more self-sustaining lifestyle, all the while enjoying more time for personal interests free from excessive possessions. Sustainable simplicity provides a mindful approach that reduces environmental impact by adopting simpler processes and minimal consumption habits. Wrap Up This Part 1 overview of de-growth visions may stimulate your interest in learning more about this essential transitional movement. Unfortunately, in terms of growing consumer numbers, material consumption, and waste products, the sustainability timeframe for contracting the size and scale of humanity’s ecological footprint is limited, perhaps only to a few decades. How so? Considering the ongoing upward trajectory of global temperatures, the chances for slowing rising global temperatures are becoming slimmer by the day. The U.N.’s 1.5°C goal set for 2025 has been traversed and prominent climate scientists fear the stage is set for attaining 3-4° C by the turn of the century, depending on the types and amount of mitigative and adaptive measures undertaken. If such a prognosis should come to pass, the Earth will become largely uninhabitable for humans and many non-human species, some of which will go extinct. We need to bear in mind that, as of April 2025, the average global surface temperature is around 1.55°C or 2.79°F above the average pre-industrial level (1850-1900). Moreover, 2024 is acknowledged to be the warmest recorded in the 175-year observational record, surpassing the previous year (2023). Even worse is the realization that current CO₂ emissions can take anywhere from 300 to 1,000 years to dissipate. So, even assuming all emissions would cease today, the Earth’s current temperature – along with extreme weather conditions – will remain around 1.5°C. Not nice! I’ve recently decided to focus the next post (Part 2) on what may be considered an unintentional de-growth trajectory advanced by the current U.S. administration. So, next time we’ll explore how such strategies as reducing government agencies and placing high tariffs on goods from other nations may actually hasten transitional de-growth goals. Regardless of any positive benefits, anticipated belt-tightening pain will create hardships for many people, especially for impoverished and low-income global citizens. Meanwhile, keep your eyes and ears open for any positive news regarding the ongoing global chaos emanating from the White House. Part 2 ~ Prospective (Intentional and Unintentional) De-Growth Impacts Click on the image to enlarge. Recap Welcome back! As mentioned in the previous post (Part 1), a de-growth process provides a transitional pathway to a potentially sustainable future, whether intentionally planned or created unintentionally. The use of “potentially” infers that there is perhaps an even greater possibility that humanity will fail to muster the will and measures needed in combatting modern society’s firmly-tethered pro-growth addiction. A brief review of the major influences affecting our current capitalistic pro-growth system seems warranted. Since most of this information was addressed in an earlier post––Modernity: From the Scientific Revolution to Now––readers might find it worthwhile to read or scan. Otherwise, the following succinct overview may suffice. Humanity’s first potent dose of pro-growthism is thought to have begun with the introduction of wood-and-coal steam-powered machines in what became known as the First Industrial Revolution (c.1750-1840). Subsequently, discovery of oil in the mid-19th century led to a plethora of techno-industrial innovations around the turn of the 20th century and the Second Industrial Revolution. Aside from the destruction caused by two 20th-century world wars, significant scientific and technological innovations were produced. Since the mid-20th century, industrialism has transitioned to an economy reliant on information and technology, including development of the transistor (1947) and personal computers in the 1970s. Next came the Internet, a widely hailed technology developed in the 1980s and popularized with the World Wide Web in the early 1990s. And now we have artificial intelligence (AI), which began in the mid 1950s and was introduced into mainstream popular use around 2023 as generative AI and AI-powered art. Welcome to The Information Age and the influence of incalculable digital services produced by electronic technological innovations, a significant shift from manufacturing to knowledge-based industries emphasizing innovation and creativity. With this cursory explanation of the principal forces driving the global economy, the rational for pursuing a de-growth strategy may be hard to appreciate, especially for global citizens experiencing moderate to superlative economic success. Adopting a lower-consumption lifestyle may not be perceived favorably. Yet, a majority of world citizens do live simply, grateful for life-supporting sustenance and minimal possessions. Actually, a simpler lifestyle may be in our future, whether intentionally or unintentionally. De-Growth Impacts – Intentional and Unintentional Thus far, we can reasonably assume that the scale of our human enterprise needs to “shrink toward sustenance”. For starters, we can acknowledge ample evidence that our existing pro-growth economic system is fundamentally unsustainable. Therefore, in order for civilization to remain within the carrying capacity of crucial planetary boundaries, the only sensible path forward is to reduce energy and material consumption. In stubbornly holding to a pro-growth agenda, while failing to conserve limited resources, future beings will suffer severe consequences. It seems the only moral way forward will require intentional conservation of natural resources and prioritizing the well-being of all lifeforms over the pro-growth economic measurement of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Positive de-growth measures include the types of services that strengthen and empower socioecological localization in creating self-sufficient, resilient communities and bio-regions. Other beneficial results may include: reduced industrial output (energy, pollution): a shift to non-monetary economies based on cooperation and sufficiency: shorter workweeks: resource-sharing: and more time for socializing, recreation, and personal interests. Environmental and ecological impacts will include the stabilization (perhaps also a reversal) of carbon emissions and biodiversity losses. Agricultural shifts toward regenerative, low-impact, non-polluting, and organic models will improve the quality of air, water, and soil, along with the quality of food grown and produced for a largely unhealthy citizenry. Moreover, in creating resilient communities, we humans–-and the animals serving our needs––will greatly benefit from a reduction in chemically-induced industrial agriculture and the rebirth of organic family farms. Undeniably, degrowth measures present risks, potentially motivating pushback from powerful pro-growth forces fearing a diminished consumer base and a failing economy. For such reasons, governments and corporations typically reject any proposals aimed at reducing economic growth. Also, in a world of mounting geopolitical tensions and conflicts, a de-growth transition movement, while possible in specific places, may not scale globally. Given this basic information about feasible intentional de-growth strategies, consider this question: What conditions might exist that unintentionally cause a de-growth scenario to develop? Well, we have a familiar example with the current U.S. administration’s inexplicable and, presumably, unintentional de-growth scenario. To understand what could happen in such a case, a recent global event provides an explanation regarding unanticipated de-growth outcomes. Unintentional De-Growth Impacts of the Covid-19 Pandemic Periodically, humanity experiences a confluence of unexpected conditions that call for emergency responses, some of which inadvertently cause societal actions that produce unintended consequences. Most people alive today recall the socio-economic hardships created by the global Covid-19 pandemic, which began in 2020, causing reactions of fear and shock, including unpleasant experiences connected with mask wearing, vaccinations, lockdowns, and widespread disruptions. The pandemic was most intense in 2021, with the highest global death toll and the Delta variant’s appearance. The following year (2022) provided an adaptive transition to a “new normal” endemic status focused on managing the Omicron variant and “long Covid” effects. Aside from the significant harms experienced, there were some largely unexpected “silver-lining” benefits, especially for Nature. First, when compared to 2019, in 2020 there was a significant reduction in fossil fuels, with global CO₂ emissions dropping by approximately 5.4%–– the largest annual drop in recorded history, mostly due to reduced transport of people and goods servicing a pro-growth global economy. With the reduction in discharged pollutants, air quality in cities improved, but as society adjusted in 2021 to a new-normal life, emissions began rising to previous levels. In response to industrial slowdowns and supply-chain disruptions, declining material consumption led to temporary reductions in manufacturing outputs, effectively lowering demand for raw materials like metals, plastics, and construction inputs. Tourism and consumer goods industries also experienced massive declines, further decreasing energy usage and material throughput. Importantly, the overall slower pace of production and consumption revealed the sizable scale of environmental impact from the “business-as-usual” practices of progressive “pro-growth” capitalism. Another significant positive effect of de-growth was a similar decline in waste materials produced by industrial and commercial companies, including toxic chemicals. With reduced traffic and more stable household routines. some cities were able to improve efficiencies in waste collection. Unfortunately, other types of waste materials counterbalanced the positive gains, especially the large amounts of medical wastes and plastic-packaging generated during the pandemic, including take-out containers. Some public recycling programs were suspended, causing many materials to be dumped in landfills. In terms of mind-body health and wellness, people developed greater awareness of their lifestyles and behaviors. Lockdowns inspired reflection about quality-of-life issues. Many office workers discovered the advantages of working remotely, freed from the challenges of commuting, unpleasant working environments, and expenses related to transportation, clothing, and food. Awareness increased regarding individual carbon footprints and the advantages of living a simple lifestyle. With a quieter, less-populated environment, wildlife became more visible in many urban environments, effectively revealing the impacts human activities have on natural systems. Other positive responses included a widening perspective of systemic insights and opportunities. Awakened awareness to the fragility of global supply chains prompted growing interest in localized, circular, and resilient economies. Governments began implementing green-recovery programs in some regions, as with the EU’s Green Deal, which sought to tie economic stimulus to climate goals. In sum, while the global pandemic produced severe human and economic costs, environmental degradation diminished in several measurable ways. Earth was given a temporary hiatus, effectively showing that rapid reductions in emissions and consumption are physically possible––not only during emergency disruptions, but for as long as intentional systemic change is needed in sustaining reductions. In general, the pandemic experience demonstrated that rapid global behavioral change is possible as a climate-action model, assuming the coalescence of political will and collective action. Wrap Up Alas, we humans tend to act collectively for the common good (of all beings) only when a major global crisis forces us to take constructive action. A prime example in modern history points to the World War II coalition of democratic allies that succeeded in defeating the authoritarian forces of Nazism and fascism. That coalition, including the formation of the United Nations, set the stage for a post-war successful rebuilding of war-torn European countries, and creating a more just and cooperative global alliance. Truly, it was a remarkable achievement for humankind. To a lesser degree, the Covid 19 epidemic stimulated a global awakening, this time to a new reality of human vulnerability, with lessons learned from experiencing positive and negative outcomes. In similar fashion, the ongoing chaotic scene in Washington, D.C. might provide another momentous wake-up call, revealing a way of living that contradicts the virtuous qualities America has represented since post-WWII. In the next three years I imagine some well-informed and motivated responses will emerge. Since I’ve been unable to cover all of the topics intended in this post, I’ve decided to save addressing the current U.S. administration’s erratically proliferating decrees until next time. Specifically, the featured topic will be the present antagonizing “tariff war”, which promises to alienate the U.S. from former allies and tarnish our international reputation as a trustworthy, cooperative long-term trading-partner. Additionally, it seems essential to consider any potentially intended and unintended potential spinoffs associated with the de-growth impacts of DOGE’s activities in dismantling government agencies, programs, and institutions. Currently, it appears that every aspect of society and the natural environment may be negatively affected. I regret closing with such a mixed-bag message of positive-and-negative future prospects, but that’s reality as viewed through my limited visionary lens. Please join me next time for Part 3 featuring a vision of an unintentional transition to a de-growth future . Link to Part 3 De-Growth Transitional Future Visions, Part 3 ~ Unintentional De-growth, the Consequences of Authoritarian Directives Clifton Ware, Clif Ware's Substack, 23 April 2025 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Clifton Ware, D.M., retired 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. |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