This was excellent. I’ve been on and off working through a Sustainability degree, and I’ve recently opened my eyes to the fact that it’s basically pointless. This said many things that I thing, so much more eloquently. Thank you.
Thanks! I quit an MBA halfway through because I realized it was all invented "rules" that are separate from and incompatible with the real environment. And I'm glad you resonated with the way I've framed things. At first, the dissonant messaging is dizzying. It took some effort to wrestle off the conditioned perspective and to see this for what it is - irrational bargaining to believe in the potential harmlessness and durability of an extreme, doomed system.
I totally agree with you. I’ve found ‘sustainability’ to be an endless series of greenwashing, hypocrisy, and lies we tell ourselves and each other to imagine we’re “solving problems” while simply just continuing on a slightly different version of BAU.
You said your writing was messy, but that what all of this is. Messy. Chaotic.
Again, thank you for this piece. I wish I were able to express my thoughts in a similar way, but instead find myself too angry most of the time.
Dismantling dualisms - Beyond reform, or revolution, there is reality: Physics demonstrates that it it isn't possible to reform what is inherently unsustainable, but all the same, the attempt to 'make the unsustainable sustainable again' remains the preoccupation of 90%+ of environmentalists, because this naturally aligns with their proclivities, and interests.
Likewise, it isn't politically possible to effect a revolution when the immediate interests of the vast majority are tied (caloric intake) to the system they imagine dismantling. The unsustainable system of ecocidal and exploitative, human-supremacism, is what feeds most of 8+ billion people. Furthermore, the system is dismantling itself much more effectively due to its own inherent contradictions, than any enlightened eco-socialist revolution could ever hope for. Billions will die in its wake - and that's not a revolution many will voluntarily sign-up for.
Beyond reform or revolution, whilst there are no solutions, there are better and worse responses to our predicament. Now, in the present, useful responses can be had which acknowledge the ongoing legacies of the past and how they inform the structural violence and trauma of the present to create more socio-ecological justice right now, and into the immediate future, but importantly, without prefiguring fantastic imaginaries of post-collapse ecotopias where 'pure' and 'natural' humans roam wild and free. These imaginaries do real violence as they lazily skip over the various injustices and sufferings of the present, imagining these experiences merely as 'compost' for a deep green future that will never be.
Fundamental ecosystems, and the biodiversity which once supported paleolithic and neolithic existences, no longer exists, nor the rich alluvial soils, now poisoned with chemicals and infested with microplastics. The rate of climate change and species-loss show us that The Sixth Mass-Extinction is proceeding at a much more furious rate (100-1000x faster) than even that of 'The Great Dying' - the Permian-Triassic extinction, aka - The Big One.
Indeed, some may argue that humans are already 'functionally-extinct' but most certainly, hard evidence demonstrates that homo-sapiens are rapidly losing the ability to reproduce (along with other species like pollinators) and will definitely, saving some kind of miracle, become functionally extinct well before 2050. And this is assuming humans can make it that far! As the process of collapse accelerates, the complex network of globally interconnected and interacting systems loses integrity with significant socio-political, and geo-political implications, further raising the likelihood of nuclear conflict, and nuclear winter.
Recognising that socio-ecological justice is inherently desirable, we can all take action as individuals and communities for whatever partial and relative justice can be attained as the process continues to inevitably accelerate towards our doom. Reworking the title of Olivera's "Hospicing Modernity", it isn't 'modernity' that requires hospice, rather, it is life, as we know it, which deserves palliative care, for a JustCollapse.
This is how the subject of the human predicament should be taught, but what institution would give up its conservative, traditional credentials in to admit you to the podium?
There were not many transnational global corporations during the indigenous peoples' era in the West, so lessons are going to be in short supply in looking for a way out of the human predicament through that lens.
Andreas Malm's new book, with Wim Cantor, fails because it again is afflicted with the lack of sociological rationality about industrial civilization that you point out operates throughout the field.
I asked Deep Seek to define the percentage of the World's population living in Westernised societies and, after much analysis and alternative definitions, it decided that between 10% and 14% of people on this planet live in a Westernised society.
On that basis, it would seem to me that as it is Westernised society and it's addiction to fossil fuels that is apparently your definition of 'civilised', and is the problem, then at least 85% of the World's population would probably vote democratically, given the chance, to vote to abandon support for the West's addiction and that of their enablers, and dump our version of so-called 'civilisation' in order to save the real planet.
Democracy in action? Do you still believe in it now?
I would disagree with the questions, definitions and percentages that you've selected as relevant. For example, the modern food provisioning system cannot possibly be preserved. In this case, a relevant population percentage would be 50%, the number of humans who inhabit cities and are therefore dependent on long-distance supply chains for food. Fossil fuels are also what transport food to USAID recipients.
I don't think I'll be able to convince you that we face a predicament, but I hope that as civilization-entangled humans (in this I include any human communities that are not entirely self-sufficient ... there are 10M hunter-gatherers active today and many more subsistence farmers) lose access to fossil fuels, I hope you'll notice how a substantial portion (more than the 14% that you cite) of us are dependent (when the time comes: *were* dependent) on violence for survival.
Great stuff and very well written, but, perhaps, preaching to the choir? I boil our predicament down to this: too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution, CO2/GHGs, climate collapse from global heating, the 6th Extinction, etc. The taboo subject that no-one wants to face is contraception and the dire need to prevent bringing another innocent life to this shyte show so late in the game, lest they suffer and die while cursing our names through their gritted teeth.
i would categorize overpopulation as a symptom, not the disease. but to the question of “what can I do about this?!”, something that we have a ton of agency over as individuals is: refrain from bringing additional lives into what's going to be a messy picture
Great work. Civilization as we know it is not sustainable. I suppose the question is what scale of organized, “back to nature”, human units can be saved?
This is an area that I've attempted to write about many times, but I've never come close to making these points nearly as concisely and clearly as you have here. Well done.
Thanks! It took quite a bit of contemplation to unravel this "illogical logic", but it reminded me of when I worked at hotels and guests would exhibit irrationality - a fun challenge to understand their minds and where they skip a step. I just regret that it spawns the drawbacks that I describe in post 6.2 ...
This was excellent. I’ve been on and off working through a Sustainability degree, and I’ve recently opened my eyes to the fact that it’s basically pointless. This said many things that I thing, so much more eloquently. Thank you.
Thanks! I quit an MBA halfway through because I realized it was all invented "rules" that are separate from and incompatible with the real environment. And I'm glad you resonated with the way I've framed things. At first, the dissonant messaging is dizzying. It took some effort to wrestle off the conditioned perspective and to see this for what it is - irrational bargaining to believe in the potential harmlessness and durability of an extreme, doomed system.
I totally agree with you. I’ve found ‘sustainability’ to be an endless series of greenwashing, hypocrisy, and lies we tell ourselves and each other to imagine we’re “solving problems” while simply just continuing on a slightly different version of BAU.
You said your writing was messy, but that what all of this is. Messy. Chaotic.
Again, thank you for this piece. I wish I were able to express my thoughts in a similar way, but instead find myself too angry most of the time.
True. And I love your nom de plume.
Dismantling dualisms - Beyond reform, or revolution, there is reality: Physics demonstrates that it it isn't possible to reform what is inherently unsustainable, but all the same, the attempt to 'make the unsustainable sustainable again' remains the preoccupation of 90%+ of environmentalists, because this naturally aligns with their proclivities, and interests.
Likewise, it isn't politically possible to effect a revolution when the immediate interests of the vast majority are tied (caloric intake) to the system they imagine dismantling. The unsustainable system of ecocidal and exploitative, human-supremacism, is what feeds most of 8+ billion people. Furthermore, the system is dismantling itself much more effectively due to its own inherent contradictions, than any enlightened eco-socialist revolution could ever hope for. Billions will die in its wake - and that's not a revolution many will voluntarily sign-up for.
Beyond reform or revolution, whilst there are no solutions, there are better and worse responses to our predicament. Now, in the present, useful responses can be had which acknowledge the ongoing legacies of the past and how they inform the structural violence and trauma of the present to create more socio-ecological justice right now, and into the immediate future, but importantly, without prefiguring fantastic imaginaries of post-collapse ecotopias where 'pure' and 'natural' humans roam wild and free. These imaginaries do real violence as they lazily skip over the various injustices and sufferings of the present, imagining these experiences merely as 'compost' for a deep green future that will never be.
Fundamental ecosystems, and the biodiversity which once supported paleolithic and neolithic existences, no longer exists, nor the rich alluvial soils, now poisoned with chemicals and infested with microplastics. The rate of climate change and species-loss show us that The Sixth Mass-Extinction is proceeding at a much more furious rate (100-1000x faster) than even that of 'The Great Dying' - the Permian-Triassic extinction, aka - The Big One.
Indeed, some may argue that humans are already 'functionally-extinct' but most certainly, hard evidence demonstrates that homo-sapiens are rapidly losing the ability to reproduce (along with other species like pollinators) and will definitely, saving some kind of miracle, become functionally extinct well before 2050. And this is assuming humans can make it that far! As the process of collapse accelerates, the complex network of globally interconnected and interacting systems loses integrity with significant socio-political, and geo-political implications, further raising the likelihood of nuclear conflict, and nuclear winter.
Recognising that socio-ecological justice is inherently desirable, we can all take action as individuals and communities for whatever partial and relative justice can be attained as the process continues to inevitably accelerate towards our doom. Reworking the title of Olivera's "Hospicing Modernity", it isn't 'modernity' that requires hospice, rather, it is life, as we know it, which deserves palliative care, for a JustCollapse.
I appreciate your critiques of the “composting” and “hospicing [only] modernity” concepts!
Thanks Andrea. :)
Pretty damn amazing post, top to bottom.
This is how the subject of the human predicament should be taught, but what institution would give up its conservative, traditional credentials in to admit you to the podium?
There were not many transnational global corporations during the indigenous peoples' era in the West, so lessons are going to be in short supply in looking for a way out of the human predicament through that lens.
Andreas Malm's new book, with Wim Cantor, fails because it again is afflicted with the lack of sociological rationality about industrial civilization that you point out operates throughout the field.
I asked Deep Seek to define the percentage of the World's population living in Westernised societies and, after much analysis and alternative definitions, it decided that between 10% and 14% of people on this planet live in a Westernised society.
On that basis, it would seem to me that as it is Westernised society and it's addiction to fossil fuels that is apparently your definition of 'civilised', and is the problem, then at least 85% of the World's population would probably vote democratically, given the chance, to vote to abandon support for the West's addiction and that of their enablers, and dump our version of so-called 'civilisation' in order to save the real planet.
Democracy in action? Do you still believe in it now?
I would disagree with the questions, definitions and percentages that you've selected as relevant. For example, the modern food provisioning system cannot possibly be preserved. In this case, a relevant population percentage would be 50%, the number of humans who inhabit cities and are therefore dependent on long-distance supply chains for food. Fossil fuels are also what transport food to USAID recipients.
I don't think I'll be able to convince you that we face a predicament, but I hope that as civilization-entangled humans (in this I include any human communities that are not entirely self-sufficient ... there are 10M hunter-gatherers active today and many more subsistence farmers) lose access to fossil fuels, I hope you'll notice how a substantial portion (more than the 14% that you cite) of us are dependent (when the time comes: *were* dependent) on violence for survival.
Death.
Practice.
Death.
Practice.
Death Practice.
Great stuff and very well written, but, perhaps, preaching to the choir? I boil our predicament down to this: too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution, CO2/GHGs, climate collapse from global heating, the 6th Extinction, etc. The taboo subject that no-one wants to face is contraception and the dire need to prevent bringing another innocent life to this shyte show so late in the game, lest they suffer and die while cursing our names through their gritted teeth.
i would categorize overpopulation as a symptom, not the disease. but to the question of “what can I do about this?!”, something that we have a ton of agency over as individuals is: refrain from bringing additional lives into what's going to be a messy picture
Great work. Civilization as we know it is not sustainable. I suppose the question is what scale of organized, “back to nature”, human units can be saved?
as I'm sure you know, it's too complicated to even guess! I suggest some "anchoring numbers" at the end of this post: https://context101.substack.com/p/14-fossil-fossil-hydrocarbons-will
Thank you! I will take a look :)
This is an area that I've attempted to write about many times, but I've never come close to making these points nearly as concisely and clearly as you have here. Well done.
thank you! these ideas marinated for months...
Great article, choice quotes, delish links. Thank you!
Thanks! It took quite a bit of contemplation to unravel this "illogical logic", but it reminded me of when I worked at hotels and guests would exhibit irrationality - a fun challenge to understand their minds and where they skip a step. I just regret that it spawns the drawbacks that I describe in post 6.2 ...