Autumn leaves on a wide path edged by trees. People walk and cycle along the path.
Image by NoName_13 on Pixabay

Ideas: Degrowth

In my quest to understand potential futures for humans, I’ve been learning more about degrowth. Degrowth is the idea that economies don’t need to keep on growing for people to live well and that the goal of economic growth is not compatible with sustainability. It’s not a mainstream idea, and many contest it, particularly economists schooled to think this is the only way the world can work. But for me it’s obvious that, if we want to limit the impact of humans on the planet, continued economic growth is not a good idea.

I am not opposed to making washing machines, cell phones and toys. These things make life easier or more fun, but producing enough, rather than excess; building businesses until they deliver what we need, and no more, seems to make sense. The goal of growth for the sake of growth leads to poor decisions like the arms industry, food waste and built in obsolescence. We need to use measures like well-being (for everyone) and a healthy environment to decide which economic activities make sense. Degrowth is not without its problems, but I like that there are people thinking about it; trying to work out how it might work and how to overcome the problems. New ideas need to be explored.

In June, I took a trip to Pontevedra, in Spain to catch a glimpse (just one afternoon) of the Degrowth Conference[1]. This was an academic conference, attended by 1100 people from 48 countries, showing that there is an interest in degrowth ideas.

I wandered around the poster session, looking out for research related to my interest in social (including economic) change. I was heartened to see that several of the posters presented research related to making systemic changes. It’s good to see systems ideas and methods taking hold with people relying on rich pictures to describe systems and find leverage points in them. Here are three examples:

Clara Lina Bader and her colleagues looked at the supply of poultry products from the Netherlands to Ghana, a complex set-up which supports Ghana’s need to feed a growing population, but also makes it difficult to develop the local poultry industry. Growing poultry in Ghana, instead of importing it from the Netherlands, would provide local opportunities and avoid the environmental costs of transport, but figuring out how to change the system, carefully, without unintended side-effects is tricky. They identified four ‘leverage points’ where it might be possible to make changes, including changes to regulations and trade agreements that prioritise growth.

Similarly, Maria Guerrero Hidalga from the Spanish water technology centre, Cetaqua, looked at water tariffs as a ‘leverage point’ in the water supply and consumption system in Spain. She proposes flexible water tariffs based not on costs, but on incentives for equity and efficiency. Prices, she argues, should change with drought conditions, should distinguish between water for residents and for tourists, and could be lower for large consumers at night.

Low density urban sprawl means that people live far from where they work and shop and so rely on cars, making it hard to reduce carbon emissions. Also, houses last a long time, so that dependence is unlikely to change. Is it worth redeveloping houses, replacing them with apartments? Laura Perez-Sanchez studied different models of densification for 10 Swedish municipalities and found that there is little difference in the impact on emissions because building apartments generates carbon emissions and people living in apartments will still need cars. She points out that it would be better to transform urban spaces to include shops and offices close to residences because this would decrease the need for cars, but says that we need better integrated models to assess the complex trade-offs in these decisions.

Urban densification is a theme in the novel I am writing and I was please to see this research supports the direction that my future city is taking. 

The poster which I found most interesting was by Dr Milla Unkila from Finland. She argues: people act in ways that damage the planet because of underlying worldviews and values and it is no use proposing solutions unless we recognise and change those worldviews and values. This aligns with my experience of trying to change systems and the prominent role of worldviews and values in theories of Information Systems. I've learned that any system change has to start with making the worldviews and values explicit.

Dr Unkila lists some ‘axioms’ of our existing economic systems which embody these worldviews and values and suggests alternatives. For example, the ‘hierarchies’ axiom, which assumes that some humans are better than others and all people are better that the rest of the planet, could become ‘holism’ which values all people and the rest of the planet equally.

The one that stood out for me is the axiom that economics is a natural science with laws that must always hold. Some schools of Economic thought believe that their laws are like the law of gravity; they apply everywhere and can’t change. Dr Unkila suggests replacing this with the idea that economics is a social system made by humans and so humans can change it. That’s an idea I like. It gives us all cause for hope. We can dismantle the darker parts of capitalism and make up kinder systems if enough people want to and work to figure out how.

Writing future fiction is all about imagining how things could work differently in the future. My job is easier than that of the researchers who have to remain within the bounds of possibility, but what they do inspires me with ideas to try in my fictional worlds. The trip to Pontevedra was a treat. The conference provided food for thought and an incomparable Moroccan restaurant (Dükela) provided the other kind.

 

[1] The 10th International Degrowth Conference and the 15th Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, June 18-21 in Pontevedra, Spain, https://esee-degrowth2024.uvigo.gal/en/

Related posts