Don’t you love it when the same publication carries conflicting reports about the economy, posted on the very same day?
Thursday, CNN ran a piece celebrating the job count, claiming the economy is nearly back to pre-crash figures. Yet in a simultaneous article, more than half of Americans now agree that the American dream is out of reach.
Friday, the leading headline of the Los Angeles Times touted job figures. And in the same issue they carried an article decried the sharing economy for its darker side: desperation. That article calls the sharing economy “disaster capitalism.”
I love the phrase, because capitalism in its current form is truly a Disaster.
I don’t wanna. I don’t wanna hafta. I won’t unless you make me.
In a way, this is the grand Toddler Tantrum of them all. Mother Earth has said a firm No, and we’re in the midst of a huge-ola, larger-than-life, encompassing-all, societal Toddler Tantrum.
Last week marked the trimphant wrap-up of our Human Ecology class at Otis College of Art and Design. It was a great group of students this semester, and their enthusiasm shone through in their final projects.
We celebrated with people from Transition Mar Vista/Venice as well as people from other departments at Otis. As teacher Elektra Grant expained so well in her introduction, it seems approprate that the "Human Ecology" class has so many stakeholders.
For me, this class was particularly special because it debuted the economics puzzle pieces I'd so long wanted to try.
In case I don't use sufficiently 'skillful means,' please let me begin with stating: I am not advocating for intentionally creating an economic crash.
Rob says about economics "once it starts getting even vaguely complicated, leaves me rather puzzled." I don't shy away from complicated, although I do strive to simplify things as I explain them, so that more people can understand. I have waded through tons of what many people lay out as possibilities for new economic alternatives, hunting for how to successfully unwind the terminally-flawed system we've got (success=relatively peacefully), and ideas for how to build a wiser parallel system.
In Rob's "One: A Post-Growth Economy = Economic Crash?" most of the thinkers Rob has selected to list -- including all the Steady Staters -- are missing a HUGE element as they create their post-growth economic pictures, while Holmgren seems to have understood it from the very early days of his Energy Descent curve: that element is Biocapacity, a.k.a. Ecological Footprint. Right now humanity consumes far more, and generates more waste, than the ecosystems of the planet can handle.
We're caught in the squeeze right now.
Climate change is advancing at an incredible speed. We know we should do something, but we lack the political will to do what it takes to hold it to 2°C. UN committees are now being counseled to prepare for 4°C of warming. To keep it survivable, there's got to be a powerdown -- starting today.
Meanwhile green-tech enthusiasts cheer the rapid rate at which certain countries are installing renewable energy infrastructure. But reports are now surfacing of shortages in the rare earth ingredients needed to make that renewable infrastructure. We don't have enough rare earth materials to replace the whole fossil infrastructure and continue on our current level of consumption. No one dares speak the little secret: Even with renewables, there's got be a powerdown.
Shale oil is environmental desecration. But people are willing to consider it because there is potentially vast amounts of money in it because the easier-to-get-to oil is running out. Along with stopping fracking, there's going to be a powerdown. But no one is talking about that part.
We should "keep the coal in the ground" scientists are telling us, and activists have (rightfully) picked up the cry. But no one never mentions the other side of the Stop Coal equation: the powerdown. We have to start talking about what we are willing to give up.
It's a sign of a really good essay when bits of it linger with you for days after you've read it and it keeps popping up in your mind. Naomi Klein's "Why Science is Telling All of Us to Revolt and Change Our Lives Before We Destroy the Planet" is one of those. Her theme? "Global capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient and barrier-free that 'earth-human systems' are becoming dangerously unstable in response."
"Serious scientific gatherings don't usually feature calls for mass political resistance, much less direct action and sabotage," Klein writes. She describes UC San Diego geophysicist Brad Werner at a major scientific conference as "observing that mass uprisings of people -- along the lines of the abolition movement, the civil rights movement or Occupy Wall Street -- represent the likeliest source of 'friction' to slow down an economic machine that is careening out of control."
The part that keeps itching at me, days after I read Klein's article, is the presumption that "mass uprisings" are the only way out of this mess.