by humus » 01/02/22, 08:01
Synthesis on these 2 videos about the prospective on the current century (collapse?) and the ways to live all this at best. The approaches of Arthur Keller and Jorgen Randers are similar, the conclusions are significantly different.
Arthur Keller notes that human civilization believes for its well-being and transforms nature into waste.
It cannot be eternal and we have already exceeded nature's capacity for renewability.
This fact can only lead to an ecological collapse in the broad sense and therefore to a collapse brutal of the world population during the 21st century. This is the conclusion of the "limits to growth" report, BAU scenario, of 1972.
Faced with this observation, he switches to an adaptation process to manage this as well as possible.
For problem solving, he insists on the need to get out of the usual modes of reasoning of experts, said "in silo", to switch to a broader vision, to a systemic vision.
These two approaches, "silo" expertise and systemic expertise are necessary and complementary.
He recommends identifying the cause of the problems to act at the level of the cause, rather than on the symptom as we often do today.
I don't hear him considering an overall positive exit for global society
From what I perceive from his speech, he proposes to enter into resistance in the face of what is taking shape: to act according to his deep convictions against the current system.
It is more oriented "individual action" but in connection, through resilient communities, having understood what is happening at the level of the earth system and acting intelligently.
At the end, he lists a lot of common sense recommendations revolving around resilience: redundancy, stock, risk culture, pooling, cooperation etc. and finally introduces low-tech.
Jorgen Randers was one of the editors of the original Limits to Growth report from 1972.
First observation, there has been no collapse considering the 50 years that have passed since the release of the 1972 report.
The question arises for the next 50 years.
With a team, he has just worked for 10 years on the development of a new computer model of the earth system, Earth4, which succeeds Worl3 of 1972.
This new model incorporates the CO2 parameter, and forecasts from 2020 instead of 1970 in the initial report.
Currently Carbon fossil fuels are finally less depleted than expected in World3, the world population is higher than expected, pollution (CO2) is higher than expected, the rest sticks quite well to the 1970 simulations.
With Earth4, a world population peak of 9 or 10 billion is reached around 2050, without a sudden collapse thereafter, contrary to the models in world3 in 1970.
This is possible through measures of progress leading to a reduction in births by women themselves: education, contraception, health care, and improved incomes.
On the other hand, in Earth4, the global well-being indicator only decreases over the next 50 years because if global income increases a little more, inequalities increase sharply.
Clearly, capital is doing better than workers.
In Earth 4, human well-being drops due to inequality and global warming. Global warming does not necessarily kill directly but greatly degrades the quality of life.
For human well-being not to collapse in the next 50 years, the rich must pay the bills now.
You have to accept investing in what is not profitable.
Instead of the current 500 billion/year for renewables, we have to go to 2000 or 3000 billion/year, which remains a small percentage of world GDP. (100 billion/year).
This effort is enough, it is not a disproportionate effort.
Individual actions and the unregulated free market will not sustain human well-being. A societal crisis is more to be feared than an ecological crisis.
Faced with the free market, you need a will, a strong state, supported by a democratic majority that wants this effort of transition and taxation of the richest.
In conclusion, although the findings of resource depletion in the broad sense are similar, the perspectives of the 2 authors are not.
Arthur Keller envisions an action on a human scale, in a small group. it does not show considering an exit through politics whereas for Jorgen Randers, the best (the only) perspective is the state and democratic level.
Each of the 2 authors undergoes his culture.
Arthur Keller is French, where the state has abandoned its prerogatives in favor of finance. People feel deprived of all power, left to themselves. Action on a national or supranational scale no longer seems possible. He does not say it clearly, I deduce it from the absence of this statement.
For Jorgen Randers who is Scandinavian, the notion of a powerful and protective state surely still has meaning.
At the level of French policies, we find this notion of taxing the rich to finance an ecological transition on the right scale, in Sandrine Rousseau and in substance in Jean-Luc Melenchon.
As Jorgen Randers says in his own way, letting the system live its life (BAU + individual actions) is not enough. We must stimulate a radical collective will. If this democratic and political impulse does not take place, it is a social collapse which is to be feared. (unemployment, riots, wars, misery, barbarism)
2 x