I have paid more attention to the issue of climate change. Regardless of the critics of climate change, I believe the majority of scientists who tell us that humans are endangering the earth. There is enough evidence through storms, fires, droughts and so forth to convince me. Of course, all of these natural maladies can be dismissed, I do believe cumulatively they can make a case for the danger we face. Combined this is some prevalent pessimism that humans are motivated enough to do anything and we do have a recipe for disaster.
I certainly believe in the capacity of humans for sin. I am a living example of that capacity. However, I also believe that humans can become motivated to act and to become lovers of our universe rather than simply plunderers. Humans have a track record of working together when facing serious events. We can think of the American response to 9-11 as an example.
It is with this perspective that I read a fascinating article focused on degrowth. I am only vaguely familiar with this idea. The word is not difficult to understand, but we need a context for it to have any real meaning and applicability. I was given both context and applicability in the article entitled, “Laudato Si calls us to radical abundance through economic ‘degrowth.’” It was written by Alex Mikulich, whom I did not know. I learned he is a Catholic social ethicist and activist. I appreciate his familiarity with the literature and knowledge which he shared in this piece.
I knew that Laudato Si is the 2015 encyclical that Pope Francis shared with the world about nature and the climate issue. That papal document is subtitled, “Care for Our Common Home.” It is an important document, not only for Catholics, but for all humans. Mikulich contends that the Pope makes a case for degrowth. So what exactly is degrowth? It is a way of engaging life---economically, socially and spiritually---that demands we live within our earth’s means to support us. It affirms that God ‘s earth provides sufficient nutrients for us to live well. He is confident degrowth can even function within a capitalist system, but it demands a different kind of capitalism. Let’s explore this.
Degrowth is paradoxical. Mikulich joins other scholars who have “articulated paradoxical ways of living in radical abundance and harmony with the planet without economic growth.” On the surface a paradox always seems untrue. A paradox seems contradictory, which typically means we don’t really understand it yet. Normally it calls for a different way looking at things. We need to be open and willing to learn a new way or to think differently. I am prepared to do this.
Mikulich quotes economic anthropologist, Jason Hickel, who offers an intriguing way into this paradoxical way of thinking. Hickel says, “Degrowth begins as a process of taking less. But in the end, it opens up whole vistas of possibility. It moves us from scarcity to abundance, from extraction to regeneration, from dominion to reciprocity, and from loneliness and separation to connection with a world that's fizzing with life.” On first glance, it makes us uneasy to be told we will be taking less. Particularly for those of us who have a lot, we are not open to doing with less. This becomes especially true if we think we “own” it or deserve what we have. Words like sharing and sacrifice creep into our minds and these are not really attractive!
I like the idea of moving from scarcity to abundance. I can’t imagine anyone being against abundance. Some of us are there now. We have life and that abundantly. I know this is a quip from the New Testament that most of us apply to life in heaven. That may well be true, but I am not writing about heaven. I am interested in all folks having a chance for a little heaven on earth. Again, what might ask for reimagination is what “abundance” looks like. Too often, we think abundance only means in terms of goods and riches. Poverty is not a preferable state of living.
Mikulich is arguing for a different vision. He does not think some suffering for all of us is necessarily a good thing. Instead of purely economic measures, I like that he opts for a different standard, namely, well-being. This is very attractive to me. He prefers to talk about a measurement call the genuine progress indicator (GPI). This “includes not only GDP, but also negative results of economic growth, such as resource degradation, to assess the overall benefit to society.” He is offering a way to say ourselves by love instead of destroying many selves (and our world) by greed. In Mikulich’s words, we “turn away from values of domination and exploitation toward values of conviviality, cooperation and reciprocity.”
The presentation from Mikulich is grounded in an understanding of God and God’s creation as one of abundance. I agree with him. But agreeing with him does not mean we can define abundance any way we want---typically in a self-serving fashion. There is enough---more than enough. But there is not an unlimited means for everyone to live like all billionaires normally choose to live. Economic prosperity is not the only way to a good life.
After all, we have to have life in order for it to be good. A good life can become a lousy life if we choose badly. The paradox of degrowth offers the alternative.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/earthbeat/laudato-si-calls-us-radical-abundance-through-economic-degrowth
Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber. I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s. It was already a famous book by then. I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it. It has been a while since I looked at the book. Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks? I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece. I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation. I wish more people read him and took him seriously. Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election. He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!” I think Brooks puts
Comments
Post a Comment