Sufficiency as a Way of Life

Can we end overconsumption to avoid doomsday?

For some reason I started laughing when I got to that phrase. “Sufficiency rather than acquisition.” I'm not sure why I started laughing. It makes so much sense. And yet it is so unlikely to be embraced…But probably about the only hope. — Eric Holle, friend, wildlife defender.

What does it profit them if they gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit themselves?—Luke 9:25

HEARING A PODCAST by environmental commentator Nate Hagens on energy and economy, I was struck by how his avant-garde guest, Doomberg, portrays the acquisitive life style as an immutable feature of society. Doomberg, despite appearing as a “talking chicken,” is no screwball. To the contrary, it is an influential energy/finance analyst team whose views, while in some ways novel, fully support the economic growth paradigm that rules our society.

As I listened, I pictured Doomberg ordering a Venti Mocha Cookie Frappuccino with 77 shots of espresso before the show, while downing the air conditioning to a balmy 72 degrees.

Here are selected Doomberg quotes (in italics), with my reactions, that lead us to this essay’s main theme.

The Malthusian Bogeyman?

The Malthusian mindset of the sixties and seventies that formed such an intellectual foundation of the modern environmental movement is this belief that we are a closed system, and that humans aren’t sufficiently innovative enough to harness the sun, everything we can eat, and then some. And we’ve proven time and time again that we are.

What?! Historically, societies have collapsed by overexploiting the environment, including the Anasazi, Mayan, Nazca, Easter Island, and others. But never mind, Doomberg is certain that for us the world is now a limitless open system.

If Malthusian beliefs were once the foundation of the environmental movement, they aren’t today. Most environmentalists ignore population growth as a primary cause of food shortages, famine, and environmental destruction. They accept Doomberg’s premise that human innovation creates an essentially open system through technology and efficiency. While there’s still talk about “overshoot,” far too many environmentalists have replaced a “Limits to Growth” understanding of the world with the oxymoron of “sustainable development,” aka “green” growth.

In no scenario can this many humans thrive in the absence of a vast renaissance of nuclear power or continued burning of fossil fuels — Doomberg.

Fossil Fools and Nukes

There is no way to live with less carbon emissions without destroying the standard of living average on the planet without going through nuclear power.

For Doomberg, we must live with fossil fuels and nuclear energy to maintain our “standard of living,” however ill-defined. In their view, the solution is production of more energy for global civilization, not with currently unreliable renewables like solar and wind, but with nuclear power. (“Green” growth advocates obviously disagree, but are on shaky ground.)

Nature for Whom?

Nate has concern for nature, and asks, “Are you worried about the natural world and the decline of insects, animal populations, ocean acidification, warmer temperatures, and the ecosystem fabric of our world for your children?”

To which Doomberg replies:

Of course, I’m concerned about my children and their children…I totally get that the Earth and nature are a key input into our economy, and we do not want to de-capitalize that flippantly, inefficiently, or wastefully. Am I worried about the consequences of climate change that are derived from the burning of fossil fuels? I’m not all that worried about that. I am worried about irreparable pollution damage and destruction to natural ecosystems that are irreplaceable.

Unfortunately, Nate framed his question about nature’s future “for your children” instead of “for all life.” Contextualizing everything related to the environment in terms of human benefits, to conform with a grossly anthropocentric belief system, is a common blunder of environmentalists who love the living world for its own intrinsic worth. This is no small thing. I’ve written elsewhere about how our human supremacist mindset will doom civilization.

Growth-o-nomics

Jevons paradox is an absolute fundamental truism of humanity….Throughout history, anytime we’ve created an invention that allows us to harvest energy more efficiently, we never harvest the exact same amount of energy more cheaply. We always harvest as much as we can, leaving the efficiency to generate more and more standard of living.

Doomberg thinks that Jevons effect is a big plus, that nuclear technology and, someday perhaps, more efficient capture of solar energy will drive ever higher standards of living. He is, of course, referring exclusively to humans, completely ignoring other life. Efficiency through technology increases resource exploitation. Jevons paradox is a bugbear for the natural world.

As for environmental harms, Doomberg says The finite amount of resources we have to deploy against this problem is far better spent on reacting to actual issues that arise from it, as opposed to trying to prevent changes…from occurring in the first place.

React don’t prevent? For the Doomberg team, scaling down resource consumption is a bad idea.

Nate pushes back in favor of degrowth but hedges, with counterproductive and dubious claims: “I think degrowth makes sense from an environmental perspective but I think it’s naive, both on human behavior and on the biophysical systems energy situation. Because if we were to voluntarily in some sort of authoritarian planned way shrink our economies, we would immediately boost the risk of nuclear war or energy wars and violence, etc…Degowth is maybe what we should do and post-growth is what we are going to have to do.”

Huh?

Doomberg replies:

The privileged West is not a closed system, and there’s something like 5-6 billion people in what we would call the global south…Every growth that we forego is going to be correctly, ethically, greedily, lapped up by those economies.

There’s a moral case for saying that those [in the developed world] who live such an exorbitant lifestyle compared to the other 5 or 6 billion, that perhaps we should forgo some of those luxuries so that they can step up, but under no scenario would our savings won’t be spent by someone else…Degrowth only really happens vis-vis carbon emissions/climate change/ecological impact if we through dictatorial means, prohibit the production of primary energy. And once you do that…the net effect is a bunch of dead people. And I think it’s actually dishonest to pretend there’s a path where our degrowth A) matters on the climate, and B) doesn’t kill a lot of people.

Whew! This part of the conversation is outright demoralizing! Both Nate and Doomberg assume that scaling down economically requires authoritarian means. Like some jolly green giant, our fate is either eternal growth or post-growth collapse. But is it?

Sufficiency

Nate’s conversation with Doomberg begs the question of why it is that a lifestyle based on sufficiency is inconceivable to those who, through economic influence and power, are running the world. If I had to guess:

They can’t imagine living on less, no matter what financial, social, and environmental benefits may accrue. Nor can they imagine others doing so without compromising the “standard of living” (again, that loaded phrase).

For instance, influential U.S “climate envoy” John Kerry, who along with his wife have a net worth of $1 billon, repeatedly assures the public that we can successfully fight climate change without cutting energy consumption. For him, like Doomberg, doing so would mean an inferior standard of living. From this, we see why political and business leaders push "green"growth while ignoring energy overconsumption.

Aside from ecological impacts, the saddest thing is that wealthy influencers lure the laboring class toward an endless and futile quest for more material wealth. Yet they must know that the “everyone can great rich” narrative in a world of 8 billion people is a lie.

At every turn, we should ask world leaders: “Why do you promote lifestyles that are unachievable for most people and bad for the planet?”

And boldly proclaim that sufficiency, a beautiful concept based on limits and improved living, is the only sensible path forward. Nothing grows forever, whether it’s one’s own body or flock of chickens. Or, the global economy.

Human Nature

Doomberg’s underlying premise that humans are helpless creatures of endless acquisition is patently false. There’s no shortage of people, past and present, who have practiced and advised others to eschew excessive consumption in favor of a sufficiency way of life.

Jessica Jungell-Michelsson and Pasi Heikkurinen of University of Helsinki explain:

Before the eighteenth century, families and communities that acquired more than enough to meet basic needs did not automatically respond by becoming consumers. Religious value systems generally taught material restraint. Patterns of dress and household display were dictated by tradition, depending on the class to which one belonged, with little change over time. Unlike the norm in modern times, in the past emphasis was more often placed on community spending, such as for a new church, as opposed to private spending…The historical consensus is that consumer society as a mass phenomenon originated in the eighteenth century in Western Europe. Although it is no coincidence that this time and location coincides with the birth of the Industrial Revolution, consumer society was not solely the result of greater prosperity. The Industrial Revolution clearly transformed production. It is less obvious, but equally true, that it transformed consumption, as much through the social changes it produced as through the economic changes…The spread of consumerism has met considerable resistance in some societies, usually because it conflicts with existing values, either religious or secular.

After interviewing Doomberg, Nate Hagens spoke with Iain McGilchrist, a renowned left brain/right brain psychiatrist. What a contrast, what a relief!

The gist of the conversation was that today’s global society is overly left brain, reductionist, and narrowly focused on production, and that the right hemisphere, the holistic part of the brain that understands relationships, morality, and beauty, is being relegated and suppressed.

McGlichrist points to how societies have historically gone back and forth between left and right brain dominance, at times going extreme left with dire consequences. It almost goes without saying that, in a world soon to house as many as 10 billion aspiring humans, collective left braininess would be very bad news.

It’s not all is gloom and doom. Iain McGilchrist interviewed by Nate Hagens.

Getting to Where Enough is Enough

For people like you and me, dear readers, the starting place is personal. Some of you are way ahead of the rest of us on this account. Next comes the bigger culture we can’t escape, and the ever present system that governs us. Individuals, culture, and governance are all integrated to set trends, and, for positive change to occur, must be understood and acted upon that way. We shouldn’t get overwhelmed emotionally or mentally by this reality but rather embrace it and live positively taking one or few steps at a time. That, says McGilchrist, requires balancing (or rebalancing) our brain hemispheres.

McGilchrist: At the moment it’s all about increasing our power to do things [left brain]. This has got us into the mess and, as Einstein famously said, “we don’t get out of the mess by the same means that got us into it.”

We are living in a world that demands more and more speed and less and less reflection. Nate adds: And so we’re compelled to use the devil’s tools to do Gaia’s work.

McGilchrist: We need to be starting to simplify. Slow down to experience things that are otherwise lost to us. Stop and reflect, don’t rush through life. [Paraphrasing] Appreciate silence, find stillness even if in pockets of it in busy places. Reconnect with the natural world, spend more time there, and listen to it.

We should pray and meditate more, and that also means listening, not talking, it means adapting your ear to what is constantly being said to you by the universe, by what exists. I’m saying everything is in relationships, and these relationships are always two-way. They always reverberate, and we drive out what we could learn by constantly talking. And so what we need to do is to cultivate mindfulness.

A slower culture would be a great thing, and when we are actually hurtling towards the precipice, why would we try and speed it up by inventing evermore sophisticated technology that will push fast and faster that way?

We need more wisdom, not more power…We need to simplify our lives, our goals, what we expect out of life. And in some ways, sophisticate what we can give to life.

Nate asks how a slower, kinder future could come about, and both agree that it starts with individuals, “a tall order,” but as Iain suggests, a critical mass of 3% of the population could do the trick and expand outward from there.

Beyond progress that we as individuals can make on our own, I would emphasize the important role that governments and broadcast media could play in “civilizing” our civilization through such means as a 4 day work week, enlightened economic policies, and honest dialogues about human reproductive responsibility, ethical relationships with non-human life, alternatives to overgrowth, and ways to enhance life through sufficiency.

One can imagine that a few enlightened, charismatic, and probably young leaders will emerge from among Earth’s 8 billion people to lead the way. That might be all that it takes to get the big ball rolling. Afterwards, we won’t miss the junk that’s destroying the world.

---

I don’t want 6 tour buses, 15 tractor trailers, and a jet. — said Oliver Anthony, a little know musician, after turning down an $8 million music industry offer. His song Rich Men North of Richmond recently went viral with over 35 million views. For many, Oliver’s sufficiency lyrics in Ain't gotta dollar are on point.