A Dose of Informed Optimism from the Tellus Institute
Posted May 12, 2008 19 comments
I don't want the reader to think I'm a cynic or a violent extremist...or a fucking moron. I realize the claim that 5GW has a role in positive cultural change raises eyebrows, and I'm working on an article explaining this in some depth. Meanwhile, I came across some truly potent brainfood that states it all better than I could.
What follows is an excerpt from the Marjorie Kelly and Paul Raskin essay How Food Riots, Pricey Gas and Home Foreclosures Point to a Better Future -- a highly recommended read. Mostly for this section here:
Transitions announce themselves in the language of crisis. We are in a time of turbulence as old patterns give way and new ones form. The multiple crises today signal a system transformation operating at the scale of the planet. Transformation is distinct from adaptation, which is the normal process of incremental adjustment to new conditions. Transformations are rare moments in history when dominant societal structures cannot cope with emerging developments and change in fundamental ways. With the converging lines of crises we face today, we may be entering a perfect storm of destabilizing stress.
We cannot predict the future. It may be good, bad or ugly, depending on how events unfold and how we respond. But scenarios can help us envision alternate futures, and our organization has -- with the aid of an international group -- crafted four scenarios of possible futures. In a "market forces" scenario, the United States continues with business as usual, other nations converge toward American lifestyles, economic growth remains the sine qua non of development, and environmental strain and cultural polarization intensify. In "policy reform," government seeks ambitious policies to protect the environment and reduce inequity; but with the ethos of consumerism unchecked, the reformist path could be overwhelmed by unsustainable trends. In "fortress world," reform fails and problems cascade into self-amplifying crises as the affluent retreat into protected enclaves amid oceans of misery.
In a "great transition" scenario, mounting crises lead not to breakdown but to breakthrough into a sustainable culture, where we shrink our environmental footprint, not only because we must live lightly and equitably on this small planet, but because quality of life matters more than quantity of stuff. It is a world where global interdependence -- as both a fact of history and a moral imperative -- replaces the heedless pursuit of self-interest as a guiding ethos. Such a resilient, just and livable world order is possible, though not inevitable. We do not offer facile hope. Large-scale social transformation does not come from small-scale woes: A time of troubles lies ahead.
Nevertheless, there is a case for hope. In the turbulence of transition, small actions can have big effects. We stand at a moment of unparalleled creative opportunity that calls for bold leaders and engaged citizens to articulate new visions of a 21st century social order and to mobilize a global movement to bring these visions to reality. Our world today generates more despair and resignation than vision and action. But it would not be the first time that an effervescence of popular political energy arrived unexpectedly to shift the direction of history.
We are beset today not by random bad luck, but by a systemic crisis that could -- on the other side of calamity -- open the way to hopeful transformation. It is up to us.
But remember: random bad luck still happens, at every level of scale. Big "thinkpiece" on Wednesday....where do you guys put the probability between those four events?
My best guess: "fortress world" 40%, "great transition" 40%, "market forces" 15%, policy reform 5%. I obviously have no faith in top-down government solutions, and I'm fundamentally neutral on the moral character of human nature. We do what we do -- hopefully, we do the right thing.
Spread the Research:
Filed in: Future Tech
Next entry: Two Cautionary Tales From the Front Lines
Previous Entry: A Simple Question About Violence
Comments
Sorry, but the comments for this entry have expired.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.1. Thirtyseven on May 12, 2008 at 6:49 PM permalink
Has anyone read Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine”? I highly recommendy...gonna do up a 2008 reading list post pretty shortly here, too.
2. MalaKai on May 12, 2008 at 8:03 PM permalink
i would argue that market forces used for positive change stand a way higher likelihood of doing so. in alchemical philosophy the poision is also the antidote. face it, capitalism is a large part of the reason why we all get to type on computers in the first place. the number of corporations and conglomerates who want to knowingly fuck the planet up and further destabilize humanity are dwindling in their realization that a destroyed earth doesn’t make much money. if you think about it, capitalism acts almost as a form of “communal interdependence.” we only need to enact policy reform in this area to see greater freedom, decentralization, and equity among more and more people. i hate politics but (especially at this time) i still feel it’s necessary to negotiate and deal and come to resolutions.
3. Thirtyseven on May 12, 2008 at 11:07 PM permalink
It’s only nescessary if it’s effective.
4. klintron on May 13, 2008 at 2:35 AM permalink
Did you read Fareed Zakaria’s article “The Rise of the Rest”? It deals with some of the same issues (including positive effects of market forces): http://www.newsweek.com/id/135380/output/print
Zakaria’s got a book out now too: The Post-American World
5. Thirtyseven on May 13, 2008 at 2:59 AM permalink
I have, and I find his comforting narrative approach too shallow for anything other than...well, Newsweek.
“American anxiety springs from something much deeper, a sense that large and disruptive forces are coursing through the world,” writes Zakaria, and I dunno. I wait tables for a living and I cross the line as much as possible asking people what’s on their mind, and the rest of the world has nothing to do with it.
They’re worried because gas, heat, food and everything else is more expensive and their wages are exactly the same.
They’re feeling generally betrayed by both political parties and they’re losing faith in their leaders and media.
Perhaps I’m just asking the wrong people, but we get legislators, lobbyists, car salesmen, local artists and high school kids...I think I got a good thumb on the pulse. Of course, I would think that.
6. gene on May 13, 2008 at 4:22 AM permalink
What they are saying is nothing new. Ecologists have been telling us this for well over 25 years. But they appear to lack a serious understanding if they believe in positive change. The fascist corporate structure that run this country and the world will never relinquish their power. You don’t really believe the stuff happening is a coincidence do you? The Neocons in this country have colluded to make us a third world nation because this is in their best interest. The world is going to look like something between a Mad Max and Blade Runner Movie. And that’s model that many ecologist see in the future. it will take a true revolution to change it and I don’t see that coming from the nation of sheep in the USA.
7. Thirtyseven on May 13, 2008 at 4:29 AM permalink
“Co-incidence” is a word I try to avoid. There’s no way to argue either side without saying the same thing, you know? It’s things happening together.
I see the Neo-conservatives as merely one faction among many, with far less control and power than they believe they have. The fascist corporate structure is very real but constantly shifting—this is a predator class, so internal warfare and backstabbing are a daily constant.
I believe in positive change because I’ve lived it and because I’ve seen it and because people I know all over the world are telling me the same thing. Although I have a very glum opinion of mankind, I also have a lot of fucking amazing friends, you know?
We’re not dead yet, and the world’s still not over, so everything is still fair game in 2008.
8. One on May 13, 2008 at 1:52 PM permalink
fortress world - 95%
everything else - 5%
the rift between global wealth and poverty has never been greater
the disparity between individual and state/corp. power has never been greater.
“hope is the last thing to go” - german saying
9. Harflimon on May 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM permalink
I think it’s more likely that it will be a mixture of “Fortress world” and “Market Forces” with a little bit of “Great Transition”. There might be some stabs at “Policy Reform” but it will more than likely fail completely.
I don’t see why any of those options are mutually exclusive. The rich already have huge fortresses they can run to, there is something of a great transition brewing on the internets and everywhere I go. And the Market hasn’t stopped because of them.
But it seems to me that if a great transition is to happen it will probably involve the rich running for the hills while we overthrow the system and replace it with a decentralized efficient model. After all, running to a fortress is just decentralizing yourself into a cozy bunker of some sort.
10. Thirtyseven on May 13, 2008 at 5:25 PM permalink
“I don’t see why any of those options are mutually exclusive.” Amen, and the biggest flaw of model-based predictions...I remember getting to the closing chapters of Changing Images of Man and realizing all their “future scenarios” were just arbitrary separations, and in fact every single scenario listed in that book came to pass, all to varying degrees.
11. Mr. Nowhere on May 13, 2008 at 6:57 PM permalink
Fortress world + market forces = Snowcrash? Maybe. I keep envisioning gated city states with private armies, feral cities abandoned by law enforcement, and whatever arises to fill the gaps between. But I’m getting ahead of myself on the speculation.
Regardless, policy reform is doomed to failure. The system as we know it is already starting to crash and burn. And mutate. Its more like gene splicing than economics at this point.
Of course, Halliburton moving their corporate HQ to Dubai was rather telling.
12. Eric Patton on May 13, 2008 at 9:31 PM permalink
Policy Reform >1%
Market Forces 24%
Great Transition 35%
Fortress World 40%
13. klintron on May 14, 2008 at 2:50 AM permalink
“They’re worried because gas, heat, food and everything else is more expensive and their wages are exactly the same.”
Yes, but part of why gas, heat and food are more expensive is because there’s more demand coming from other countries, and part of why wages are stagnant or falling is because there’s more supply of workers in other countries. These aren’t the only causes (price gouging by oil companies and a generally tendency by Americans to live outside our means are other contributors), but they go a long way towards explaining it. America, collectively, and the individual American, singularly, has a lot more competition these days. Another good one: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/03/15/scary-thought-maybe-the-rust-belt-is-the-whole-us-now/ “Maybe the Rust Belt is the whole U.S. now?”
14. Klintron on May 14, 2008 at 2:54 AM permalink
Though on that note the good news is that the US is still the 2nd biggest exporter in the world - we’ve basically been collectively spending more than we’ve been collectively making, and the money we’ve been making isn’t very evenly distributed. Which means we, collectively and/or individually can find ways to cut down on spending and get more of the pie.
15. Bruce on May 14, 2008 at 6:05 AM permalink
I’d like to underscore the comments that these scenarios are not mutually exclusive, and ADD that to me what we’ve been talking about previously about being independent operators means that WE have a great deal of choice about which scenario we will end up in, and WE have the power, within the scope of our own lives, to make significant contributions to these different scenarios.
I am not saying you can get the whole world to do what you want it to do, but I am saying that you can make your part of the world/find a part of the world a lot more to your liking-- and that you have a lot more power to do this than most people think.
This sizable power for change to me deserves more than to be categorized as “warfare,” 5th generation or not.
16. Thirtyseven on May 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM permalink
I agree that “Warfare” needs to be redefined, but I also like the seriousness and focus that warfare implies. The whole party-peace-love approach hasn’t really been working out for us.
17. klintron on May 15, 2008 at 1:10 AM permalink
And speaking of walled fortresses does anyone find this a bit ominous: http://www.smithgill.com/MasdarHeadquarters.htm
18. Ray on May 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM permalink
I would guess 60% market forces and 40% fortress world with genuine policy reform nowhere to be seen and great transition bubbling along underneath it all. I guess sort of like now, only more so. Then maybe great transition will have opportunity presenting itself at some point when things get so weird market forces dramatically mutate and fortress world breaks down because the magic spell that makes those inside the fortress “affluent” dissolves.
Then everyone gets ice cream.
19. mani on May 16, 2008 at 2:14 AM permalink
‘In a “great transition” scenario, mounting crises lead not to breakdown but to breakthrough into a sustainable culture, where we shrink our environmental footprint, not only because we must live lightly and equitably on this small planet, but because quality of life matters more than quantity of stuff. It is a world where global interdependence—as both a fact of history and a moral imperative—replaces the heedless pursuit of self-interest as a guiding ethos.’
I don’t get it. Are you laughing at this globalist propaganda, or agreeing with it?
This reminds me of Bezmenov talking about Useful Idiots:
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2007/07/yuri-alexandrovich-bezmenov-explains.html