Is democracy compatible with de-growth?

[GliderGuider]

One of my core beliefs is that humanity is in serious ecological overshoot. The degree of overshoot is open to question - it may be anywhere from 50% to 5,000% depending on your definitions and assumptions - but the fact that we are in overshoot is pretty obvious at this point.

If we are in overshoot to any degree, one requirement for the long-term survival of our species is to reduce our demand on the planet's biosphere and the damage we're doing to it. Reducing our impact requires de-growth, whether in our numbers, activity levels or both. In activist circles it's assumed that such a reduction can be accomplished within a democratic system that respects individual rights and freedoms. Is that assumption warranted?

As a preliminary test, I decided to look back in history. After all, many societies in the past have collapsed, so we have plenty of experience with running into environmental or structural problems. Is there evidence that we can foresee and avoid such problems by planning for de-growth before the emergency strikes?

I asked my Facebook community for input regarding any societies that have implemented de-growth plans before being hit over the head by an external limit or internal breakdown. The responses identified only two large societies, the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan (the Edo period) and China with their One Child Policy. The other suggestions were small, usually religious, subcultures like the Mennonites.

Regarding the two large-scale examples, I note that both of those societies were/are strongly authoritarian. This suggests to me that democracy is fundamentally incompatible with de-growth. While authoritarianism on its own doesn't guarantee de-growth either, it seems to be "necessary but not sufficient."

A society with authoritarian governance may not achieve de-growth, but a democratic society can not. The reason is that people in a democracy are free to vote in their own short-term best interests (or in the interests of those who control the media). In an authoritarian society only a few people near the top of the power structure have to understand that de-growth is required. In a democracy, unless a significant majority of the rank and file are convinced, it ain't going to happen.

So long as nations remain democratic, few of them will create preventive plans for de-growth. And as long as the world remains composed of individual nation-states with competing interests, there will be no international, global push for de-growth either.

What are the political community's thoughts on this conclusion?

[Bigmack]

1. Alas. Totally agree with your post

Obviously I do not look forward to life under a dictatorship, and there are no guarantees that one would get an enlightened dictator, but I see no other choice if our species is to have any chance at survival. Damn! Ms Bigmack

[Jackpine Radical]

2. The most important aspect of "de-growth" is in reducing the total population.

Several countries have actually attained negative population growth; it almost always seems to have required easy access to abortion in addition to "prospective" birth control.

As regards economic "de-growth," this may actually not be necessary, depending on your definition of growth.

For example, it may become possible to produce enough "green" energy to take care of our needs, especially when accompanied by increased efficiency in usage.

I could also imagine any of several technologies, such as H2 fuel cells, making it possible to continue with individual transportation devices (cars).

High-speed rail could substantially reduce the energy cost of transcontinental travel, and electronic communications could reduce the necessity for it.

Green agricultural methods (e.g. permaculture systems, urban gardens, etc.) could meet the nutritional needs of a reduced population, as well as putting more people to work.

And so on. I could imagine a future with more equitable distribution of wealth, and in which real innovation is encouraged rather than suppressed.

So yes, I could imagine a sustainable and democratic world. I don't think it will come about, however, without a MAJOR shift in values and attitudes, and the most likely way for that to happen is in response to a major, species-threatening catastrophe.

[2naSalit]

3. Very thought-inducing points.

I need to digest this a bit, some other options are developing in my work-weary mind right now so I can't quickly respond with the poignancy this topic and points made respectfully require. I will ponder this a bit and respond soon. For now I'll just kick to keep it circulation.

[on point]

4. Universal education of women has led to population declines

That is a democratic aligned value. U.S, Europe, Japan all have declining populations, were it not for immigrants in US. As women become better educated the growth rate declines. I don't think democracy may be the problem, but capitalism and the the thirst for power. The PTB want bigger populations in order to overwhelm others. I don't see that changing in dictatorships

[GliderGuider]

5. Dictatorships did address (if not reverse) excessive growth in both Edo Japan and China

As I said though, there's no reason to expect that they would do that in general.

However, "capitalism" as we know it doesn't much care what nominal political system it grows on. So long as the compliance of the politicians can be ensured, the system can take whatever shape it wants. That may be the true genius of the modern economy - both democracies and authoritarian governments can be suborned, given enough money.

When economic growth is no longer possible, de-growth will become the norm. Does a collapsing economy require an authoritarian government in order for a nation state to remain coherent? I think that most nominal democracies that have faced such a situation begin to look more and more authoritarian over time.

Most countries that have emphasized universal education for women have seen a decline in growth rates, but not necessarily in absolute growth. It has normally taken a parallel economic collapse to do that, as seen in the ex-Soviet bloc nations.

[DonCoquixote]

6. would dictatorships really reduce growth?

or simply use it to target women and other minorities? Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, yet they have nto reduced growth at all.

[GliderGuider]

7. Not necessarily.

But they are at least politically able to force de-growth on their citizens if they become convinced it's necessary. Democracies have to use tools like education or "market mechanisms", which take a long time, aren't very effective at shifting public opinion, and are open to subversion by corporate interests.

Dictatorships are just as (or even more) open to corporate subversion. The only advantage they would have in this situation is the ability to force such a difficult path on their citizens, but if they have already been captured by corporate interests, even that advantage is moot.

[ffr]

8. We have to break our stereotype that a growing economy is good...

and a shrinking economy is bad.

Not always.

When the population is exploding like it has for the past two centuries, sure the economy should expand. But by definition, if populations (Germany, Japan, parts of Russia) decline, so too should their regional economies. And that does not necessarily mean recession as a bad thing. It just means there's fewer consumers buying stuff they don't need.

This is a topic that must be addressed at the United Nations level.

[The2ndWheel]

10. Growth is easy. Everyone gets more. Hooray!

But every institution we have is based on growth. They don't even work without it. We don't know how to do contraction.

[The2ndWheel]

9. Even an authoritarian government needs to grow to be effective

How else do they keep everyone in line?

Look at it from the perspective of a cow, and our growing democracy is their authoritarian hellscape. Caged, bred for certain traits, no longer free to move as they please even when outdoors, pumped with chemicals so they can produce more milk and/or meat. Same with plants.

Our technology is really what's pushed/pulled us so far. With that, what do we have? How much damage could we do?

[GliderGuider]

11. That's one of the things that derailed China's OCP.

It got steamrolled by a couple of Five-Year Plans...

[hunter]

12. Communites that successfully implement "degrowth" do not show up in the history books.

They avoid the chaos of a collapsing civilization by keeping a low profile. Most of my own ancestors were in the U.S.A. at the time of the Civil War but there are no family Civil War stories. Likewise the "Dark Ages" of Europe probably were not so dark for people who escaped the notice of historical empires. My ancestors likely didn't miss the Roman Empire at all. Good riddance to them and their roads and their aqueducts and armies. Much the same as the Inuit probably didn't miss the Scandinavians in Greenland.

Cultural regions that reject birth control and have little tolerance for non-violent anarchy are in for some tough times. It's the fundamentalists, racists, nationalists, and sociopaths of all stripes who will actively kill people or callously allow them to die.

Cultures that cannot adapt to new environmental conditions will die but not necessarily the people of those cultures.

I don't think "Democratic" and "Authoritarian" labels are useful here. From the perspective of a dissident, both sorts of society impose upon me in unwelcome ways. For example, I find the automobile culture loathsome. Automobiles kill and maim people, they isolate people, they cause severe damage to the environment, and generally they stink. Even though my wife and I abandoned the automobile commuter lifestyle many years ago, automobiles are a cultural necessity in our community. Fully functional adults are expected to have cars. Children, people who have had their licenses revoked for drunk driving and other offenses, blind or otherwise disabled people, and recent immigrants (mostly undocumented farmworkers) are the only people who don't have automobiles.

There are ways of transforming an automobile based community into a walking, bicycling, and public transportation community, but that's probably not going to happen until economic "degrowth" makes owning and operating an automobile too expensive for the majority. Recent farmworker immigrants here live in dense communities, very roughly converted 'fifties era suburbs, and connect with the labor buses in the supermarket parking lots.

If the U.S.A. is unable to correct the growing disparity of wealth, and we are unable to significantly reduce our environmental footprint, our "middle class" is going to be living in conditions very similar to those of the recent immigrant farmworkers in our community.

[GliderGuider]

13. I agree that political labels have little relevance.

I wrote this article partly to point out an unexamined assumption in political/environmental activist communities: that degrowth can be implemented without damaging personal rights and freedoms. IMO that assumption is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

Good points. How 'bout that Kaczynski feller, eh?

[Hortensis]

14. Interesting question, GliderGuider. I suspect a sufficient number of citizens are right now

in early stages of being "convinced," a tragically delayed process that will now inevitably continue to play out.

Yes, I see no reason that sustainable growth, or de-growth as needed, is incompatible with democracy. I point to, just for instance, the very strongly opposed Clean Air Act of 1970 and this Kansas City photo that predates it. Both products of our democracy, but the latter is history.

<img src=>

[hunter]

18. There were some improvements, in our own power plants for example...

... but U.S. corporations simply exported much dirty manufacturing to other nations with less restrictive environmental laws.

Anything we buy from China adds to the smoggy skies there, and thinking about places like Oakland, California, this includes huge things like giant bridges and dockyard cranes, stuff that used to be made in Oakland, blanketing inland areas with smog.

[madokie]

15. You make a good argument for population control

I've been thinking the whole world needs to be on a one child diet. We have over populated this planet no doubt. Too many humans and not enough other species

[GliderGuider]

16. The arguments are sound, but arguments don't carry the day on this issue.

Population is a deeply emotional issue for most people, doubly so for those with children. Even activists who are aware of overpopulation as a crisis issue are content to point to the gradual deceleration of fertility rates - even as our absolute numbers continue to rise, and consumption and environmental devastation continue apace.

Overt population control is, and will remain, off the table, probably until we are well into the rupture of civil societies around the world. As always, it will be a reaction to events that have already occurred.

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. Like seeking volunteers for the Soylent factory

Not impossible but going to need one heck of an inducement to get the numbers needed.

[pscot]

19. The only experience we have of actual degrowth

are the waves of bubonic plague that scoured Europe from the 14th to the 17th centuries. I'm not aware that anyone has looked at those events with an eye to their predictive value in relation to our situation. There were no democracies, but I don't think governance changed much as a result of the die offs. But we depend on such complicated arrangements to sustain our present numbers; if a quarter of us died suddenly, the whole system would certainly be shaken to it's roots. The knock on effects would likely lead to more and more deaths. I think to the extent that democracy survived, it would be mainly a local affair. By the time we've reached that point I'm not sure it will matter very much.

[cprise]

20. Wealthy elites are less concerned about AGW than the public

I would even say that is the nature of the problem itself: In a plutocracy/oligarchy the rich can always displace the poor from any place they identify as an environmental "high ground", and dump the consequences of cheap-and-polluting processes onto the poor. They have every reason to stall as long as they can tell themselves their offspring will have greater advantages in a world that takes its revenge on people who will become ever more desperate to serve them.

The elites are using the un-democratic features of the system to prevent change, and their tendency for obstruction and denial increase as the gulf between rich and poor increases. I suspect if we had something closer to a true/direct democracy then there would be plenty of political capital available for exploring degrowth.

There may be *some* way of moving toward more democracy (or at least reversing the oligarchic trend) if computers can be adapted to the task. However, the mass-market components of today would just create more BBV (black box voting) scenarios which are a step backward. Emerging open systems would need to be adapted to the task of voting almost on a daily basis.

Such an experiment would be preferable to authoritarian systems, IMO.

[GliderGuider]

21. What major developed nations are neither oligarchic nor authoritarian?

Are there any putative democracies where the public discourse hasn't been captured by commercial/financial interests? Is this the same as asking whether there are any democracies that don't subscribe to capitalism?

The rubric of capitalism seems to give a most convenient cover for the stealthy takeover of public process by oligarchic interests.