In book one of my guidebook series, I am writing about how we can develop our intellectual, ethical, and emotional resources to embrace ecological and social limits and advance the transition towards sustainable, democratic, and secure societies.

This latest writing update is a reflection on finishing the introduction chapter of the book, which lays out the crises we face and offers a vision of root-level solutions.

Human societies face multiple crises. We’re consuming resources and emitting waste faster than the planet can accommodate, a path that will end in the collapse of our societies unless we change course. Even societies called “democratic” have been run primarily for the benefit of the wealthiest and most powerful minority of their population, and in recent years many have elected authoritarian figures who actively seek to eliminate the rights of everyday people. Various kinds of insecurity have been growing, including both economic insecurity that has left more and more of us deprived of basic needs and psychological insecurity that leaves us feeling unsafe in our community or lacking in value as a person. Increasingly prevalent mental health issues, loneliness, and despair may suggest that many of us are struggling to maintain a sense of meaning in life, while more and more people are finding meaning in unhealthy ways (e.g. supporting authoritarian movements, buying into conspiracy theories, etc.).

In the introduction chapter of my book, which I recently finished, I trace these crises back to two roots in particular:

1. Unbalanced institutions that force us to consume beyond ecological limits, deliver wealth and decision-making power to a small portion of the population, and push us all towards insecurity and away from healthy sources of meaning. (By “institutions,” I am referring to economic institutions like corporations and business laws, education/information institutions like schools and media, and political decision-making institutions like governments.)
2. A culture of passivity in which it is normal to accept things as they currently are, to not ask and pursue deep questions, and to remain isolated rather than joining together in social movements to create a flourishing society for all.

To transform our institutions so that they promote balance rather than undermine it, I believe we must create a culture in which the norm is to be intellectually and civically active. I envision large numbers of people actively learning about the nature of their society and its problems and working together to address them. How can we establish this kind of culture? At the most fundamental level, I believe it begins to expand when we commit to a more conscious and conscientious approach to the development of our worldview, the set of mental maps that we use to make sense of our experiences, make predictions, and make decisions.

Too often we let our worldview develop without enough conscious scrutiny, and I believe this “autopilot” approach is the deepest root of our societal crises; our schools and media institutions don’t prepare us with the kind of holistic and actionable analysis we need, and we’re not accustomed to rigorously exploring and revising our mental maps, so these knowledge deficits tend to persist. Democracy doesn’t function if we don’t understand the causes of our collective problems and strategies to address them, or even what those problems are. To create societies that are sustainable and democratic, and that thoroughly promote security and meaning among all of their members, we need enough of the public to be well-informed, actively engaged, and emotionally prepared for the struggle that change often requires. When most members of a society take an autopilot approach, that society will have an intellectually and civically passive culture, and the number of people actively trying to address their collective problems will be a small minority.

But if we take the opposite approach and consciously scrutinize the development of our worldview, we can build more reliable mental maps and the healthier habits that flow from them. It means asking well-thought-out questions, pursuing answers fairly and thoroughly, and using the information and perspectives we find to update our beliefs and behaviors. I refer to this process as cultivating our autonomy. An autonomous citizenry would be more likely to seek a nuanced understanding of its society and our collective problems, participate in campaigns to elect champions of public interests, and have the resilience to overcome the challenges involved.

The skillsets of autonomous people

There are several components of our mental maps: fact judgments (beliefs about what is true or false), value judgments (beliefs about what is good or bad or important), assumptions (pre-judgments about matters of fact or value), and emotions (our feelings about our fact and value judgments). We cultivate our autonomy by exploring the realms of facts, values, and emotions, and learning how to successfully navigate them. When we explore the realm of facts to figure out what was, what is, what can be, or what will be and why, and learn how to learn and reason more rigorously, we are building our capacity as critical thinkers. When we explore the realm of values to figure out what should be and why, and learn how to align our actions with the answers we find, we are developing our capacity as moral agents. When we explore the realm of emotions to figure out how we feel and why we feel the way we do about beliefs we currently hold, and learn how to accept (or even embrace) the discomfort of change, we are developing our capacity as emotion regulators.

The skillsets of critical thinking, moral agency, and emotional regulation make us more autonomous, empowering us to rethink and restructure the way things currently are. Addressing our crises involves becoming the kind of people who can embrace sustainable lifestyles, who join together with others in social movements to transform their society, and who persist even when it is difficult. I think we become these kinds of people as we practice these skillsets and incorporate them more deeply into our identity.

How did the vision for the book change over time?

When I began writing this book in 2022, I was thinking about all of the knowledge one would need to support the transition towards sustainable societies. Beforehand, I had spent years reading about and reflecting on climate breakdown and other societal crises, and two things became clear: there is a lot of context required for taking thoughtful action on these issues, and I had learned very little of it as a student in school or as a casual reader of mainstream media. For instance, we don’t learn in depth about our dependence on the Earth and the harsh consequences of consuming beyond ecological limits; the way that energy sources and technology enable the lifestyles we take for granted as “normal;” how the current economy produces overconsumption and vast economic inequality; how much citizen participation is required to have a democracy and the perils of authoritarianism; or how core cultural concepts like “freedom” that shape our aspirations can be seen from very different perspectives. Without this kind of holistic understanding, a person will not see why fundamental changes to our lifestyles are justified or be equipped to make the best decisions for their long-term well-being.

Eventually I began to think about the qualities that would lead someone to seek out this knowledge, to appreciate its significance, and to accept the changes it points towards. In my essays, I often spoke about the crucial nature of autonomy. In my system change curriculum article, I argued that the qualities that make us autonomous are the most important topics for educators to teach, because they motivate our pursuit of deeper understanding and empower us to rethink old beliefs and habits when we encounter new and compelling perspectives. My essay on the need for a new Enlightenment argued that these qualities are the cultural foundation of an ecological transition. In many ways, I simply returned to thoughts I’d been having throughout my own intellectual journey towards the book. But it took me a while to realize that these qualities should be the focus of this book (and that holistic knowledge for system change would need to be the focus of a second book).

Another vital question loomed: how many people are currently looking for an “ecological transition guidebook?” How many people would see that topic as relevant to them? Very few, unfortunately but understandably. It became clear that we must build bridges between who we are today and who we must become if we’re to address our crises.

Thinking about this question helped me realize that the qualities that make us autonomous allow us to more successfully navigate complex problems, regardless of whether they arise at the societal level or within our personal life. Take a moment to think about the complex questions and issues that arise when trying to be a good parent or a good friend, or when choosing a career, or when dealing with a setback. If our habit is to act on assumptions or impulses rather than consciously examining them and weighing our options, we’ll often find ourselves responding in ways that aren’t aligned with our long-term well-being or others.’ But if our habit is to collect more information, question our biases, come to better-reasoned conclusions, and learn how to be our best self even when circumstances are difficult, we’ll find that we handle this complexity better. These are some of the same habits we would rely on to learn about and become open to an ecological transition. One doesn’t need to already be motivated to help address societal crises to commit to cultivating these building blocks of autonomy.

I used these insights as I wrote the introduction chapter, trying to put myself in the shoes of a reader who is only seeking personal growth. I wanted to speak to people who are looking for deeper meaning or greater security in who they are, for greater freedom, or for stronger relationships. I tried to highlight how autonomy allows us to achieve these goals while also describing the societal crises we face and how an autonomous public can address them. In thinking about this kind of reader, I was simply reconnecting with my younger self—someone not yet thinking about the state of society, but who was drawn to this work by a desire to live a meaningful life. I would still describe what I’m writing as an “ecological transition guidebook” to someone who is already concerned about or working to address our sustainability crises. But to the majority of people who are not currently focused on that topic, I might describe it as a program for developing our inner freedom, gaining greater control over our circumstances, and crafting more fulfilling lives.

Combining inner and outer transformation

In the chapter, I envision two distinct but interdependent social movements that I intend to help organize after the book is published. They are vehicles for turning words on a page into a new reality. One movement would be aimed at inner transformation, in that all members would be committed to cultivating their autonomy. It has an individual action component in which we actively practice critical thinking, moral agency, and emotional regulation in our everyday life, and a collective action component in which we discuss our efforts and collaborate with others on the same self-development journey. It would also include education programs based on a holistic curriculum—the key takeaways about ecological systems, technology and energy sources, economics, power structures, and culture that I believe we must know if we’re to make informed decisions in this time of multiple crises. This movement could build a bridge between activists working to address our societal crises and non-activists whose current motivation is to create a flourishing life, with everyone working towards the same qualities. As it grows, so would a more intellectually and civically active culture.

The other movement would be aimed at transforming our institutions so that they promote long-term well-being for all rather than unbalanced relationships between different parts of ourselves, between ourselves and others, and between humanity and the natural world. Participants would pursue a broad policy platform that, among many other things, would establish a floor and a ceiling on our resource consumption, so that everyone can meet their basic needs within ecological limits. We would actively support political candidates who champion this platform. This movement would be rooted in our recognition that we depend on healthy ecosystems and on each other to survive and to thrive. A broad policy platform would build another kind of bridge, linking action on the crises that present the most immediate threat to our well-being (e.g. economic insecurity), which is the primary focus for most people, with action on the crises that threaten to foreclose our future.

Almost ready to share

I’ll conclude by highlighting another reason I’m excited to have finished the draft of this introduction chapter: I have prepared nearly enough of the book to begin sharing it with everyone who has graciously signed up to offer feedback. First, I need to go back to my chapter on critical thinking, which I finished in 2023, to add a few ideas and make sure I spend enough time highlighting the benefits of the associated habits for our personal life (like I try to do in the introduction). But soon I will announce the start of the sharing process to all those who have signed up.

If you’re interested in reading a draft of this book and providing feedback, please subscribe here at freedomsurvival.org.

Check out the previous post, which highlighted a few takeaways from my chapter on cultivating moral agency—our habits of introspecting about our values and learning to live in greater alignment with them.

The post Maps & Bridges: Tackling Societal Crises Through Inner & Outer Transformation appeared first on Freedom and Survival.

In book one of my guidebook series, I am writing about how we can develop our intellectual, ethical, and emotional resources to embrace ecological and social limits and advance the transition towards sustainable, democratic, and secure societies.

This latest writing update is a reflection on finishing a chapter about ethics and values.

What topic did you write about and what was the experience like?

I recently completed a chapter currently titled “Cultivating Our Moral Agent Identity and an Action Plan for Long-Term Well-Being.” I define a “moral agent” as someone who regularly asks and pursues ethical questions about themselves and the world, deeply explores their value system with the intention of making it more conducive to their own and others’ long-term well-being, and works to align their actions with their values. This chapter is about how we develop our moral agency: our ability to notice, question, deconstruct, and synthesize the ethical significance of our reality, and to act on it.

By building this aspect of our identity, we empower ourselves to critically evaluate what our culture teaches us and imagine fundamentally different societies. The chapter envisions a self-development program for individuals and offers a platform of policy goals for long-term well-being inspired by ecological economics, human needs, and other research domains that we can pursue together as a social movement.

I’ve been working on this chapter since late 2023, and the completed draft is 42,000 words. I don’t think I’ll ever face a tougher writing challenge than this, both for the remainder of this book or even the rest of my life. It was uniquely difficult because the topic of values seems so abstract. At the beginning, it was unclear how to concretely discuss moral agency or provide steps we can take to align our values with the lives and societies we wish to create. I didn’t find many actionable thinking tools after scouring hundreds of articles about ethics and our inner worlds, so I tried to create some of my own.

Why did you write about this topic?

Values are fundamental drivers of our behavior and they are increasingly considered deep leverage points for addressing the crises we face. Sustainable, democratic, and secure societies embody particular kinds of values, so to build these societies we need growing numbers of people to embrace these values. Pursuing valued goals is also central to feeling purpose in life, something we’re naturally interested in. Yet the key question of how to access our values, redefine them (if needed), and act in greater alignment with them never seemed to receive an in-depth answer within the academic literature I reviewed. I was spurred on by many questions:

How often do we consciously explore our values? Are we aware of the core facts and assumptions that influence them? How do we translate our values into the goals we hope to achieve? Do we have conscious goals for our personal life? Do we have civic goals that motivate us to make an impact on our society? How often do we check that our actions align with our goals? When ethical dilemmas arise, and one or more cherished values must be traded off against others, do we have a fair and thorough process to reason through that complexity?

Most of us spend far too little time exploring our value system or talking with others about the values currently embodied by our society. Changing how we live and transforming our societies can feel impossible, but that shouldn’t be surprising when the ethical beliefs that shape us are so rarely subject to scrutiny or discussion. What if we build a social movement that pulls growing numbers of people out of those habits of passivity and helps us cultivate our moral agency? What if we make it a cultural norm to consciously evaluate the values we want to live by, seek out more nuanced definitions of these values, and frequently recheck our value-action alignment? I believe these active habits address many of the roots of our crises, and if they catch on there’s no telling what we could achieve.

What are some things you learned or wrote about?

After working on these ideas for more than a year, my feeling is that there are no secrets to accessing and reorienting our values. The ingredients seem somewhat obvious to me: well-thought-out questions about our beliefs and where they come from, sincere attempts to answer those questions (including by taking in and reflecting on new information and perspectives over an extended period of time), and a willingness to change how we think and act when the results of our investigation suggest it is warranted. Moral agency is critical thinking applied to the realm of ethics. The process is not beyond our ability; we just need to understand the transformative power of consciously engaging with our values and put in the work required.

I loved writing about particular values like freedom, responsibility, and wisdom, and exploring how the concept of limits is essential to each of them. I believe limits-informed values are the foundation of sustainable, democratic, and secure societies. The crises of ecological overshoot, authoritarianism, and various kinds of insecurity are all manifestations of unbalanced relationships we have with the natural world, each other, and ourselves. We have been consuming resources and emitting pollution much faster than the planet can sustainably accommodate, and allowing wealth and power to become concentrated among a smaller and smaller minority of the population. The resulting scarcity for most and abundance for some create barriers to everyone meeting their needs. Limits are the tools we use to establish the balance we’re missing.

One big topic in the chapter is the struggle required to live a values-aligned life and build societies that respect appropriate limits. Though it’s true that inaction on the crises we’re facing will have unfathomable costs, many people assume that fact is sufficient to motivate action. However, taking action has its own costs—putting in effort when progress is uncertain, for instance, or having to let go of something you cherished. I think that unless we’re prepared to pay those costs, such as accepting new ways of defining justice, freedom, and other values in light of limits, then we won’t take action to support the transition even if the alternative is to lose everything we care about. But by acknowledging these challenges and discussing them with others, we develop more reasonable expectations and become more prepared to transform ourselves and our societies.

An excerpt from a discussion of wisdom:

Wisdom means having a broad and nuanced understanding of oneself and the world that facilitates our pursuit of long-term well-being for all. It is clear-sightedness; note that this does not mean having a clear answer to every question or problem, but rather an appreciation for the process required to understand them and an acknowledgement of why many do not have clear answers. What is that process? I believe it’s the critical learning framework outlined in the last chapter: fairly and thoroughly considering all relevant context that is reasonable to collect, and determining the significance of a fact, idea, or claim according to a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. We gain wisdom by applying critical thinking to the realm of ethics (i.e. questions about what is important and which actions should be taken or avoided), with a commitment to fairness that extends beyond considerations of fact to also apply to the perspectives and interests of different stakeholders.

Some may think of wisdom and intelligence as the same thing, but they are not. Someone who possesses a skill for learning things quickly or has substantial knowledge in certain areas may still lack the understanding that is characteristic of wisdom. Indeed, an intelligent person could live their entire life without really exploring its significance or could even direct their knowledge towards being selfish, never gaining awareness of the harmful impacts of their actions on themselves or others. A society with enough intelligence will probably become technologically advanced, but only a wise society will know how to use that technology in a way that helps rather than destroys humanity. This is because a wise society will recognize the need for limits and learn to cultivate good lives within them.

If you’re interested in reading a draft of this book and providing feedback, please subscribe here at freedomsurvival.org.

Check out the previous post, which discussed personal life and civic goals that can empower us to live purposeful lives and pursue our long-term well-being.

The post Cultivating Moral Agency to Transform Self and Society appeared first on Freedom and Survival.

In book one of my guidebook series, I am writing about how we can cultivate our intellectual, ethical, and emotional resources to embrace ecological limits and advance the transition towards sustainable and democratic societies.

This latest writing update is an excerpt that discusses some of the ideas I’m exploring in a chapter on ethics and values.

In this chapter I explore the kind of value system that a supporter of an ecological transition might possess. Based on that exploration, I suggest that we should consciously commit to two kinds of goals: personal life goals and civic goals.

I suggest that our personal life goals should be to “lead an examined life and pursue long-term well-being for ourselves and our loved ones within ecological and social limits.”

I suggest that our civic goals should be to “create ecologically sustainable, functionally democratic, and secure societies.”

Having provided that context, here is an excerpt from the chapter in which I briefly reference my own experience of finding purpose in these goals:

One of the crises this book seeks to address is the feeling that our life lacks purpose or meaning. I believe that pursuing these personal life and civic goals, particularly in combination, helps those of us who experience this feeling.

Researchers currently believe that three factors in particular lead to the sense that we are living a meaningful life: coherence (feeling that we can make sense of our experiences), purpose (feeling that we are guided by valued goals), and significance (feeling that our existence matters). The goals suggested above support each of these factors. Leading an examined life promotes coherence by prompting us to notice, explore, and learn from experiences that feel purposeful and significant. Striving for well-being for ourselves and our loved ones means focusing on intrinsically fulfilling values that can become our purpose. These personal life goals help us meet our basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which studies of tens of thousands of people have shown to be correlated with our feeling of meaning in life. And pursuing our civic goals can provide a strong sense that our actions matter to a project larger than ourselves, while achieving them would create needs-focused societies in which everyone could more easily find purpose and meaning.

The reason that I began actively learning about the world and working to address the climate crisis is because I was looking for a purpose. I was very fortunate to have supportive family members whose love filled my life with significant meaning, but I still needed a project to which I could fully commit myself. I have a restless mind that would frequently ask what I was doing with my life. When I heard someone speak about how severe climate change would become and that not enough people were working to address it, I realized that it could be my project. My contributions were needed. Since then, the goals I suggested above have become my purpose.

Working towards these goals has driven me to learn much more about myself and the world than I likely would have without them. I regularly explore fascinating ideas and look for lessons I can use to help society to save itself. I have chosen my own course of study and civic action (autonomy), synthesized the lessons I’ve found and honed my ability to communicate this picture to others (competence), and along the way met great people who share my drive to create a better world (relatedness). I have found immense purpose in this work, but not because I am sure I’ll achieve these goals. That is unknowable, and some things we’re working towards may never be finished. I pursue this project because I feel it is worthy of the one life I have to spend: it motivates me to grow, it empowers me to eliminate some unnecessary suffering, it teaches me to more fully appreciate what matters, and it allows me to help others develop their own autonomy. It is a worthy challenge, and it answers the questions my restless mind had been asking. Because I have this purpose guiding my actions, I feel like my life makes sense and that I am living it well. I reference these experiences because I hope to share this limitless fountain of purpose with everyone.

This is an excerpt from my ecological transition guidebook series, which is currently being written. If you would like to provide feedback on the full draft when it is ready or be informed of future progress, please subscribe here at freedomsurvival.org.

Check out the previous post, which explores some of the complexities of creating just societies.

The post Goals for a Purposeful Life appeared first on Freedom and Survival.

In book one of my guidebook series, I am writing about how we can cultivate our intellectual, ethical, and emotional resources to embrace ecological limits and advance the transition towards sustainable and democratic societies.

This latest writing update is an essay that discusses some of the ideas I’m exploring in a chapter on ethics and values.

Achieving a just transition away from fossil fuels is a core motivator and strategic concern of the climate movement. Today’s young activists call for climate justice, and have pushed considerations of fairness into policymaking. A review of various Green New Deal (GND) proposals finds that they almost universally invoke justice to frame plans for investing in a 100% renewable energy system. But what if our definition of a just transition is too idealized to guide our response to the climate crisis?

While the concept can evoke a number of ideas, climate justice often points to the disproportionate impact of fossil fuel use and climate disasters on particular groups of people, and a resulting obligation to specifically safeguard, invest in, and elevate the voices of those groups. The original GND resolution describes justice as “stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of… frontline and vulnerable communities.” The vision expressed in influential documents on climate justice often seems to be ever-increasing welfare as the only just outcome of a renewable energy transition.

Though this vision may primarily be meant to express our aspirations, its feasibility is not typically examined in depth. As a result, our understanding of climate justice may not yet incorporate much of the complexity that we face.

Transition Dilemmas

Consider one source of ethical tension: Communities will experience greater harm as we move further away from a climate that can support agriculture and safe living conditions, suggesting a need for as quick a transition to renewable energy as possible. However, the well-being of countless numbers of people is currently tied to the fossil fuels that we must rapidly phase out. A quick thought experiment illustrates the challenge. If fossil fuel use was completely shut down tomorrow, the planet would likely stop warming and very slowly return to its pre-industrial state. However, with fossil fuels currently providing 80 percent of the world’s energy, most economic activity would also stop—food production processes, manufacturing centers, transportation systems, healthcare institutions, and more. If we abruptly abandoned fossil fuels, it’s clear that untold harm would follow. Societies would have to simultaneously expand their social safety net to try to ensure that everyone can continue to meet their basic needs amidst a rapid transition. Despite these policies, there will be a threshold decarbonization rate beyond which communities may experience some reduction in welfare in the short to medium term.

This thought experiment highlights a contradiction at the heart of the energy transition: moving too slowly means greater harm from an increasingly damaged climate, while moving too quickly—reducing fossil fuels faster than we can replace them with renewable energy—likely means some level of hardship from decreased energy services that we currently rely on every day. Our concern for maintaining communities’ well-being in the present seems to impose a limit to transition speed that comes at the expense of their well-being in the long term.

Some may assert that we can transition fast enough to comply with our carbon budget with no cost to well-being, but that is an open question demanding extensive evidence as well as subjective judgment. To work towards justice we cannot assume that this question is already resolved, and must instead attempt to thoroughly investigate it.

Difficult Choices

It makes sense to begin by establishing the technical limits to transition speed. We would need to ask several questions about the conventional ideas for decarbonization (i.e. those that allow us to reduce carbon emissions without shutting things down). How fast can our technology become more energy efficient? How fast can renewable energy infrastructure be manufactured and installed? How fast can we reforest available land to absorb carbon from the atmosphere? How fast can we expand our social safety net and reorganize society to meet basic needs at lower rates of energy consumption? We must also look into other limits facing these transition strategies beyond deployment speed. For example, what is the total potential impact of increased energy efficiency and reforestation? Do resource availability issues constrain the size of the renewable energy system we can build?

Only after getting a sense of these technical limits do we have the context to consider ethical limits. If we try to achieve the maximum transition speed that technology will allow, is any harm likely to result? How would different groups of people experience the benefits and costs differently? Carefully considering these questions can help us think about the possible consequences of moving too quickly. Finally, we could compare more moderate pathways to the rapid transition pace demanded by our dwindling carbon budget, and calculate how much warming would take place. If the answer is that we can only maintain the energy services required to meet basic needs at today’s levels by causing warming beyond the international “red line” of two degrees Celsius (2C), then we would need to accept that some reduction of welfare is inevitable, and determine which side to err on.

I believe that this dilemma is something transition advocates must examine. Technological advancements could of course alter the analysis, making it more feasible to address the climate crisis without as much disruption, but ecological problems are somewhat time-limited. At today’s high level of emissions, delaying serious action for just a few years can significantly increase the decarbonization rate needed to keep warming below 2C and consequently the likelihood of reduced welfare during the process. According to the UN Emissions Gap Report, after a decade of inaction the rate needed now is more than double what it was in 2010. If it were possible to decarbonize with no significant consequences for our well-being today, that may not be true in a year. The ethical complexity of our situation increases constantly.

Different perspectives on justice point towards different conclusions. Climate justice often entails a recognition that some of the most disadvantaged communities, who had little role in causing climate change, are affected worst. It suggests that their needs should be prioritized, which would likely mean pushing the transition as fast as possible. However, those living in carbon-intensive societies might be best served by a transition that seeks balance between reducing emissions quickly and maintaining a certain level of energy services. There will be advocates on each side arguing that theirs is the most just approach.

This discussion illuminates a vital point: there is no single answer as to what is just. Because humanity has waited so long to address the climate crisis, many clear-cut good choices may be off the table, and we’ll instead need to look for the best available among various difficult options.

Analyzing Justice

To figure out the nuances of climate justice, we must reflect on one of the fundamental conditions that gives rise to the idea of justice in the first place—scarcity. If we lived in a world where all living things could access enough resources to meet their needs today and in the future, there would be less of a reason to think about justice. When scarcity is involved justice becomes especially relevant, because we have to determine legitimate ways of distributing limited resources and opportunities.

By analyzing the types of limits that give rise to scarcity, we can better understand the challenges we face. We need to figure out where the limits are, the extent to which they can be overcome, and how best to do so. Ecological limits, for example, are rooted in physical laws and give rise to absolute scarcity that we can do little to overcome. Prolonged overshoot beyond ecological limits eventually causes societies to collapse, so we must learn to live within them. Other limits may produce a more artificial scarcity. If the economy distributes wealth in a grossly inequitable way, such that many people don’t have the resources needed to embrace a rapid energy transition, it’s because of man-made limits that we can change.

Our analysis of limits must incorporate the realities of trade-offs and uncertainty. In a world of limits there are always trade-offs. Rights have costs, both in terms of the material resources required to grant them and in terms of conflicts with other rights. We cannot assume that all rights we believe should ideally be possessed can actually be granted. We must first figure out what is physically possible, and then determine what is morally preferable given the constraints at play. Uncertainty is another key aspect of our judgments. Many details about our issues can be known with a high level of confidence, others not as much. Like everything else, dealing with uncertainty requires balance. We should strive to eliminate it but accept that we may not be able to do so completely. In those cases, we must acknowledge that it exists. Action will often be warranted nonetheless. We can only be morally responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions.

We may ultimately decide to allow more warming than we could theoretically avoid because the challenges of a maximally fast transition would be too substantial for some communities. At the same time, I believe that the kind of “transition culture” we would need to develop would help us access major sources of well-being that are currently neglected in societies driven by consumerism, profit, and power—dynamics I explore in my essay on a new Enlightenment. Nevertheless, it is not realistic to define a just transition as one that avoids any adversity, even for vulnerable communities whose welfare is prioritized. A more nuanced perspective might recognize justice as a good faith commitment to undoing the burdens we can undo—the artificial scarcity—while attempting to equitably distribute the unsolvable burdens posed by absolute scarcity.

It is crucial that our shared understanding of justice incorporates the challenges arising from absolute scarcity, the likely trade-offs between different interests and values, and the many uncertainties that will accompany the transition. Climate activists must initiate conversations about these topics within the movement; otherwise, we may find the transition’s strongest advocates paralyzed when ethical dilemmas arise. Once we acknowledge the many limits we face, justice will probably look quite different than it did in the fossil fuel age, when abundant energy and resources provided quick yet superficial solutions to human problems. We’ll need to stimulate broad public discussion and recognition of this new vision of justice to have any chance of passing policies informed by it. If we can learn to navigate the ethical complexities of our non-ideal world, we will be much better prepared to transform it.

This is an excerpt from my ecological transition guidebook series, which is currently being written. If you would like to provide feedback on the full draft when it is ready or be informed of future progress, please subscribe here at freedomsurvival.org.

Check out the previous post, which explores some of the “core facts” of an “eco-democratic value system.” Or see the next post, which discusses two kinds of goals that can become limitless sources of purpose in life.

The post Climate Justice in an Ethically Complex World appeared first on Freedom and Survival.

In book one of my guidebook series, I am writing about how we can cultivate our intellectual, ethical, and emotional resources to embrace ecological limits and advance the transition towards sustainable and democratic societies.

This latest writing update examines some of the topics I’ve been researching over the past several weeks and some of the ideas I’ve been writing about in a chapter on ethics and values.

Moments from the research journey

Exploring basic yet crucial concepts

I spent one day researching the question “what encourages open-mindedness?” It’s an important question, because we may find that our values need to shift to create a new society. We’ll certainly face ethical challenges throughout the transition. Our ability to approach these demands with an open mind is essential—I believe our society’s ability to change will be proportional to our ability to change as individuals (in community with others).

I found a fairly recent article claiming that open-mindedness wasn’t yet clearly defined, so its author set out to provide a fuller definition. In many articles I’ve read, it’s been a theme that many basic concepts we regularly use in our thinking and our discussions are less concrete than we tend to treat them.

I don’t find that theme very surprising. Concepts help us to interpret our reality, but it seems like we only need a rough definition of them to navigate everyday life. The regular use of concepts we haven’t thoroughly examined is exactly what I’d expect to find in societies that appear to be sleepwalking towards collapse. To change how our world works, part of our task must involve the development of stronger or more elaborate definitions of core cultural concepts. Ultimately, I found little in the way of methods for helping people become open-minded beyond what already seems obvious (e.g. reflection about why it’s an essential quality, regularly reminding ourselves to approach challenges with curiosity rather than judgment, etc.).

Answering the question, “How much (research) is enough?”

A constant struggle is how to know when I’ve done enough research and can finally move on to writing. It’s often unclear what it would take to reach that point, but eventually something clicks. A link to a book about values for sustainability sent to me by Gus Speth pointed me in the right direction. When I followed the link, I found that I was familiar with several of the authors who had contributed a chapter—Speth himself, Peter Brown, Paul Raskin, and Tim Kasser. The number of leading thinkers involved suggested that this edited collection was a unique resource on this topic, and that what the contributors did or didn’t say would likely represent much of what the field has to offer.

I read through several chapters, noting where a statement had significance for my work.

• From one of the chapters: “According to the celebrated psychologist Shalom Schwartz, ‘none of the theory-based attempts to classify the substantive content of values…enjoys wide acceptance today’ (Schwartz, 1994).” I take note of experts highlighting where the topics I’m writing about are unsettled. It provides support for the idea that as long as I’ve read widely and can make a solid case for my perspective, it may be as good as anything else out there.
• Also, “Were value systems truly universal, it might imply that they could not evolve. Ehrlich (2000: 305-331) is very clear that human ethical systems and values have evolved, and in some circumstances or at particular times, very rapidly. Mary Midgley (in conversation, March 2007) is equally emphatic on this point.” I take note anytime the feasibility of value shifts is brought up.
• Speaking of which: “Recent work by Schwartz (e.g. 2006) suggests [value shifting] is entirely possible, because he and coworkers have repeatedly shown that people belonging to different cultural groups accord different collective priorities to the values types, and that each community tends to have its own unique value-priority profile. If so, there is reason to believe that the processes of education and introspection described below could bring about, if not a revolution in our attitudes to nature, at least significant shifts in the oppositions between technological change and traditional methods, and between individual advancement and community-based action, in favour of greater emphasis on conservation and collective values.” These statements bolster my sense that the pretty obvious methods of education and introspection are valid and perhaps the main routes towards value shifts.

These chapters reinforced the sense I got from prior reading, particularly from very recent articles in the newer field of inner transformation for sustainability, that there are no “secrets” or particularly well-researched means of shifting (or educating for) particular values. There are ideas, but they aren’t better or very different than what I already thought. It gives me confidence that the discussion I will provide—a thorough examination of the ethical demands and complexities of the transition—will be fairly novel and helpful for the reader to wrap their mind around value shifting.

The exciting thing about finding a unique resource like this book is the way it provides a foothold for answering that elusive question of when I’ve read enough to feel reasonably informed about what others have said. Such “foothold” resources don’t just offer their own insights, but can also help you locate other unique resources on the same topic when you investigate who has cited them. Among those citations should be other leading thinkers on the topic, who can often lead you to even more high-quality articles. One can go from not knowing the main points of expert agreement and disagreement in a field to fairly quickly finding the most vetted and representative views this way.

I performed that search and found that the book had far fewer citations than I expected, but one was a great article by Carol Berzonsky and Susanne Moser that confirmed there’s little scholarly discussion of how to shift values: “While many have deplored and critiqued the values that underlie unsustainable practices (e.g., McKibben, 2010; Hamilton, 2010; Orr, 2011) and many have described the more hopeful endpoints of the sustainability transition (e.g., Earth Charter Commission, 2000; Raskin, 2006), few in the transformation discourse address the process by which such a profound cultural transformation might occur.” Needless to say, I went on to search for articles citing this one as well.

After several weeks, I partially examined or completely read over 100 articles on the topics of ethics and values for sustainability. The process relates to a core message in my book—at some point limits have to be imposed. With all that reading accomplished and a few “foothold” resources discovered, I decided to switch from research to writing mode.

My current writing topic: the fact judgments at the core of an eco-democratic value system

I have been working on distilling the components of a value system that could justify the goal of creating ecologically sustainable and democratic societies (an “eco-democratic” value system). Most who read this will take for granted that such a goal is worthwhile, but I think the more we explore the underlying reasons, the better we’ll understand where we’re trying to go and both the benefits and costs involved. Ultimately, I believe we’ll feel more compelled to act and much more prepared to actually create new societies.

Here I consider which facts seem most important in justifying efforts to create sustainable and democratic societies.

1) We are not self-sufficient, but rather fundamentally dependent beings. Perhaps the most significant example is our dependence on the Earth. If our priority is survival, then we need to create a balanced relationship with global ecosystems by respecting ecological limits.

2) We are also fundamentally dependent on other human beings. This means that our ability to meet our needs is connected to the ability of others to meet their needs. It is also true that our life outcomes are significantly shaped by chance, thus people’s current inability to meet their needs does not necessarily reflect what they deserve. Whether our priority is to meet our own needs or the needs of others, these facts can justify efforts to create balanced relationships among ourselves—particularly in terms of the distribution of wealth.

These first two statements remind us that we are never totally independent, in two very consequential ways. First, we rely on functioning ecosystems and physical resources, so if we hope to survive we must respect ecological limits. That means placing limits on how much we consume and adopting smaller-family norms to stabilize and gradually reduce the size of the human population. It also means we must aim to distribute wealth equitably, because economies would no longer grow and sharing would become the only way to meet people’s unfulfilled (physical) needs. We would need to learn to live within limits. Our lifestyles would be defined by sufficiency—a focus on meeting our needs at adequate levels rather than the pursuit of endless wants.

The second consequential way in which we’re dependent is that we rely on other human beings to meet our needs, whether through the care, love, and support others provide or the goods and services we all collectively produce. It is also a fact that our life outcomes are significantly influenced by the luck of when, where, and to whom we’re born. These two facts can be used to justify the substantial wealth redistribution that must occur if we want to create sustainable societies that aim to meet the needs of all.

3) Human nature is extremely wide-ranging. We can be selfish or selfless. We can be competitive or cooperative. We can be each of these things at different times. But people are generally inclined towards reciprocation, which is the foundation of cooperation. We have within us the capacity to accept personal limits for our collective good. Our worldview and actions are shaped by our culture, a fact that can be used to promote cooperative behavior.

This statement is an answer to the question, “Is it really possible for humans to accept limits, sufficiency, and sharing?” We’ve already noted that humans rely on one another just to survive as well as to thrive, and our evolutionary history strongly supports the idea that we are geared for cooperation. If we change our cultural norms and institutions to bring out our capacity for collective action and solidarity, we might find ourselves more willing to embrace limits, sufficiency, and sharing than some might think.

4) Our basic needs as human beings go far beyond the consumption of resources. We are much more complex than that. Fulfilling human lives are built from a focus on eudaimonic well-being.

This statement is an answer to the question, “Is it possible for humans to not just accept but actually embrace limits, sufficiency, and sharing?” All living things must consume resources to meet their basic needs. But research suggests that what makes human beings feel fulfilled is more complex than these material requirements. We need the components of eudaimonic well-being, which include:

• Feeling that there’s a purpose to our life
• Self-acceptance
• Diving deeply into particular topics, skills, or projects
• Close, healthy relationships
• Personal growth

We can design our societies to facilitate these sources of fulfillment. In doing so, we can promote human flourishing and reduce the overconsumption behavior we may exhibit when trying in vain to substitute for these sources.

5) Societal change is possible through collective action.

History shows that social movements can transform societies. In the absence of an engaged public, the superrich wield disproportionate influence over governments and promote policy decisions that serve their wishes at the expense of public interests. As everyday people work together and aggregate their power, they can deepen the level of democracy and fight for control of policy. With high-quality and high-quantity collective action, we can create an economy that enshrines ecological limits and a culture that promotes eudaimonic well-being.

Perhaps you can think of additional facts that seem central to an eco-democratic value system.

In addition to core facts, I believe our value system is constructed from our assumptions (beliefs we either haven’t verified yet or simply can’t), ethical intuitions (beliefs or feelings about right and wrong that can’t be reduced to facts), and value-laden concepts like freedom, progress, wisdom, and many more. I think we form our moral picture of the world from the connections between these components. My goal is to provide frameworks that help people to think more deeply about where their values come from, how well these values resonate with the societies we must create, whether their actions align with their values, and how to achieve greater value-action alignment.

If you’re interested in reading a draft of this book and providing feedback, please subscribe here at freedomsurvival.org.

Check out the previous post, which highlights early work on this chapter about the values of sustainable and democratic societies. Or check out the next post, an essay on climate justice and ethical complexity.

The post Embracing the Values of Sustainable and Democratic Societies (part 2) appeared first on Freedom and Survival.

In book one of my guidebook series, I am writing about how we can cultivate our intellectual, ethical, and emotional resources to embrace ecological limits and advance the transition towards sustainable and democratic societies.

What topic are you writing about?

I’m working on a chapter about why we’ll need to become more conscious of our values and actively work to align them with the sorts of values upon which sustainable and democratic societies are built.

Why are you writing about this topic?

Citizens of wealthy countries like the United States inherit consumerist, individualist, and anthropocentric values in which limits either don’t seem to exist or are regarded as harmful and deserving of strenuous opposition. Societies that respect ecological limits would likely require a significant amount of their population to embrace values informed by and supportive of these limits. The public’s support for the transition (i.e. willingness to join social movements to push it forward and vote for post-growth political candidates) depends on our ability to elevate limits-informed ethical systems. We must begin to reflect on and discuss our values with an open-minded approach that allows us to redefine and reorient them.

I also believe that a rapid, all-encompassing societal transition poses serious complexities which will stymie any social movement that lacks a nuanced understanding about what justice entails on a finite planet already in ecological overshoot. There will be plenty of ethical questions without clear answers and cases in which we are deciding between non-ideal options. We’ll need to prepare for these challenges in order to avoid paralysis or deep division, and find ways to move forward.

What are some things you are thinking, learning, or writing about?

Emotional swings and guiding questions

Every time I start planning a new piece of writing, I’m saturated with feelings of overwhelm. Sometimes I’ll fear that I don’t have much to say about the topic. Other times I have a difficult time handling how much I want to say—it feels like the writing will never get done. And it does tend to take a few months beyond what I think is acceptable. But it does eventually get done. And the thought of putting together a chapter about limits-informed ethics is very exciting—rethinking the fundamentals of how we live seems essential for transforming society. I love asking “what is life about?” and drawing others into the same reflection. In my view, it’s a way of turning off autopilot, becoming more aware of how we see the world and how we spend our time, and opening up the possibility of change.

A question I repeatedly ask myself is how I can make this chapter useful and novel enough. Those who analyze our ecological crises often trace them back to the values held by wealthy countries. What I haven’t seen is a deep, nuanced discussion about how we should respond—if we take seriously the idea that current values are one of the roots of our crises, then we must explore how can we change what we value. To what extent is such change possible? How do our current values serve us or fail to do so? How might different values serve us better? What research exists on the topic of value shifting? Are there multiple ways to conceive of a “value shift” that would suggest varied approaches (e.g. changing how we interpret existing values rather than instilling new ones)? What sorts of challenges to our values might the transition pose? Which ethical complexities are we not yet acknowledging or preparing to work through?

These are the kinds of questions I want to respond to. The chapter will incorporate and expand on my piece about creating an ecological and democratic definition of freedom, my essay about creating a culture that can support the transition, and an as-yet-unpublished essay I’ve written about the complexities of climate justice. I think the resulting discussion could be useful in a number of ways: it should help readers reflect on their values, consider whether new ways of thinking are warranted, recognize some ethical challenges presented by the transition, and learn how to make more thoughtful decisions in the face of those challenges.

Research journey

I’ve been working on the beginning of the chapter, where I introduce the themes we’ll discuss.  In order to make accurate generalizations about ethics and values, I read a number of articles that provide a broad overview. That includes relevant Wikipedia articles (which can offer helpful summaries of a topic like this and this), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles (including about value theory, ancient ethical theory, African ethics, personal identity and ethics, metaethics, and moral epistemology), and the Encyclopedia Britannica’s article on ethics. I love the overviews that encyclopedias can provide.

One section of Britannica’s article made me laugh out loud. It is the section on “ethical egoism,” the idea that “Everyone should do what is in his own interests.” The author points out that adherents of “ethical egoism” are forced to claim that others’ self-interested actions benefit rather than damage our own self-interest. Otherwise, this theory would be self-defeating. The following paragraph bluntly begins with this: “Unfortunately for ethical egoism, the claim that everyone will be better off if each person does what is in his own interests is incorrect.” That’s where I laughed out loud, because it was so matter-of-fact and sounded to me like the narrator meme (see below). Maybe you had to be there.

There are numerous everyday cases of constrained self-interest that lead to collective benefits, like when large numbers of commuters choose public transit rather than the personal benefit of their own car, which prevents traffic congestion that would make everyone worse off. But the phrase “collective benefits” doesn’t really capture the full magnitude. Life in a society is only possible when we work together and place limits on our actions (consider, for example: laws).

It’s important that I clarify something: being selfish, or pursuing what we want with no regard for the consequences, is frequently not the same thing as pursuing our self-interest. Self-interested action is a natural and necessary part of life and it can be ethical, depending on the context. Sustainable and democratic societies require an adequate balance between individual interests and collective interests. How do we achieve it? I think that part of the answer is shifting from narrow self-interest to enlightened self-interest (e.g. interpreting self-interest primarily as individual and collective well-being rather than either personal power or pleasure). Another likely part is shifting further beyond enlightened self-interest towards some level of ecocentrism, where we recognize inherent value in non-human animals and natural environments.

I’ve also read a number of papers on “inner transformation for sustainability,” written by scholars who share my conviction that values and the worldviews they help to structure are essential leverage points for a societal transformation. This field seems to be in its early stages, but growing. What its articles offer at this point is support for my argument that values must be sufficiently aligned to create sustainable and democratic societies, but there isn’t a lot yet in terms of frameworks for understanding and shifting values. I have put together a few that I think could support fuller ethical analysis and decision-making, and they’ll be a large part of this chapter.

I’ve seen scholars assert that conscious value shifts may be possible and must be pursued while others argue that such shifts seem infeasible. I haven’t yet read enough to get a sense of whether one side has more adherents, but I believe we’d need to get specific about the type of shift in question to gain any clarity. In certain cases we might be looking to help people redefine a core value (like I discuss in my piece on redefining freedom). In other cases we might be trying to change the importance of a particular value relative to another (say, prioritizing increased well-being over certain kinds of freedom). Maybe we’re trying to change the way that someone practices or honors a particular value (e.g. expressing patriotism by joining an activist movement) or the way we expect society to do so (e.g. honoring equality by recognizing a greater role for government in ensuring basic needs for all are met).

What’s one takeaway?

Ecological ethicist Peter Brown argues that a goal/ethos/metaphor is one of the main components of a value system. I currently think of this goal as our aspiration for our society and its institutions, a vision that can be distilled into standards for how we should live our lives. I recently reflected on how few of us have a conscious goal for our society that we feel in some way responsible for contributing to. If the value system of most everyday people often lacks this component, then our ethics remain very underdeveloped; at best, we mainly think about the rightness of our actions in the context of our immediate relationships and little beyond. It’s no wonder that larger societal problems only continue to worsen. The people who do tend to have a goal for their society are the superrich; they establish organizations and employ groups of people to actively shape societies in ways that serve their narrow self-interest. Our society’s problem-solving capacity is stunted when so few citizens have a goal/ethos/metaphor as a north star for their value system, and we end up missing out on a major part of our identity when our ethics fail to extend into the collective realm.

If you’re interested in reading a draft of this book and providing feedback, please subscribe here at freedomsurvival.org.

Check out the previous post, which highlights some of the ideas and research from my chapter on developing a “critical thinking identity” to advance the transition. Or check out the next post, which explores some of the “core facts” of an “eco-democratic value system.”

The post Embracing the Values of Sustainable and Democratic Societies (part 1) appeared first on Freedom and Survival.

In book one of my guidebook series, I am writing about how we can cultivate our intellectual, ethical, and emotional resources to embrace ecological limits and advance the transition towards sustainable and democratic societies.

What topic are you writing about?

I’ve drafted a chapter about why critical thinking and holistic knowledge are essential for making the transition, and how everyday people can cultivate these assets.

Why are you writing about this topic?

I believe that all of us, from those involved in planning an ecological transition to everyday people who will decide whether it moves forward or not, must cultivate our ability to think critically. And not just as a tool we use sometimes, but as a core part of our identity. The essence of critical thinking is an active approach to deciding what to believe, in which we fairly and thoroughly search for and evaluate information about consequential topics. It stands in contrast to a passive approach in which we don’t seek to be informed about important issues or only accept what we happen to hear. We must come to see the active pursuit of knowledge about ourselves and about the world as key to who we are, so that both can be transformed.

The prospects for creating societies that respect ecological limits rest in large part on our ability to successfully perform the massive amount of thinking involved. Wealthy countries must significantly reduce their consumption of energy and materials, with major implications for how their populations live. Beliefs about what technology can or cannot accomplish will shape how (and whether) we prepare for a different future. Political systems, economies, and cultures must shift. Public support depends on our collective ability to navigate complex and contested changes to our societies.

For example, we’ll rely on critical thinking to distinguish real complexity from false complexity. The transition is likely to be more challenging than we tend to hear about, with hard choices to be made about what we preserve and lifestyle shifts we’re not yet prepared for. That’s real complexity we’ll need to navigate. There will also be lots of what I think of as false complexity—propaganda, bad faith arguments, and one-sided perspectives spread by opponents of the transition. We’ll need to be able to tell these two categories apart so that we can plan to productively deal with the real complexity we can’t avoid and not fall prey to the false problems and distractions that will constantly arise.

I also want to help others see how the task ahead demands extensive self-development. One of the big reasons why a transition to a sustainable society could occur despite numerous obstacles is because in many ways it would force us to become a fuller, more authentic, and more capable version of ourselves. We’ll need to develop our ability to think clearly about the world, understand our values, and productively channel our emotions to overcome those obstacles. There is a deep well of fulfillment to be discovered by those working to create this new society.

Another reason I write is to envision and bring into being the kind of group that I want to be a part of. I’d like to belong to a group that embraces complexity and nuance, is actively working to becoming widely and deeply informed, and can have productive discussions about topics that challenge our values. In other words, a group in which each member is committed to cultivating their critical thinking identity in service of both their own personal lives and—just as importantly—in service of the transition towards sustainable and democratic societies. I want to build a movement that is intellectually active and masterful at learning, one whose extensive education and discussion networks evoke the revolutionary salons of the Enlightenment.

I think this chapter can be very useful because it details how anyone with sufficient motivation and time can develop a deep understanding of any topic. It’s the process by which I’ve cultivated the analysis presented in all of my essays. I’ve long felt that a lack of clarity about the consequences of our actions is one of the major roots of most if not all human problems, and I’m hoping this chapter is a resource that can help people learn to think with more clarity.

What are some things you learned or wrote about?

Resources discovered: In 1990, experts in the critical thinking movement were surveyed to find consensus perspectives on the dispositions of a critical thinker (listed below). None of them belong to a small, gifted minority of people, but they do take work to live by. I think we’ll need a movement of people working to build these habits to realize sustainable and democratic societies. (Note: Delphi studies, which directly survey the views of experts in a field, can be a great resource for learning about that particular field.)

Resources discovered: In searching for books on critical thinking, the most practical one I found for applying the associated skills and dispositions in your everyday life is Richard Paul and Linda Elder’s Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Whereas many of these books seem to get bogged down in technical discussions or emulate a philosophy course in logic, which make the lessons less translatable to real life, this book is geared more for a general reader and is consequently more applicable.

Experts: It can be fascinating and highly informative to not just look for explanations of the ideas you’re trying to learn about, but to trace their history. Alec Fisher offers a concise history of some of the major figures in the critical thinking movement and the ideas they emphasized in his essay “What Critical Thinking Is.”

Insights: Your ability to think critically is as much about being critical of the sources of information you find during your research process as about being critical of yourself. You must ensure you’re searching for and evaluating information fairly and thoroughly, only reaching conclusions that the evidence and assumptions allow, and striving to acknowledge when you don’t know enough.

Insights: It’s common to hear that new (or repeated) information doesn’t change how people think. But if information didn’t change opinions and attitudes, then misinformation wouldn’t be an issue. Indeed, what would be the point of an education system or a media system if information changes nothing?

Insights: We can’t live without trust. We learn the vast majority of our beliefs about the world from what others have done rather than our own direct experience. But who do we place our trust in, and why is that trust justified? It’s a vital question to periodically ask ourselves. One can get extremely far in understanding the world by starting out with a solid “credibility framework” that identifies institutions and people who are likely to make claims about reality in good faith. Alternatively, starting out with a poorly developed credibility framework leads to odd outcomes like getting one’s scientific perspectives from politicians rather than (relevant) scientists, believing evidence-free claims because any rationale (however poor) is provided, or placing trust in figures with an easily searchable track record of making untrue or unreasonable statements.

From the chapter: In this chapter, I highlight nearly two dozen common cognitive biases which could impede the transition if left unchallenged. I describe why each bias presents an obstacle and offer a question we can ask ourselves to try to detect and hopefully avoid its effects. One example is the Ostrich Effect, our tendency to to avoid negative information even if it could help us deal with an issue we have. We’ll need to remain open to all information relevant to effectively planning and navigating the transition. To try to detect whether this sort of bias is influencing your thinking, ask yourself: Am I avoiding information because it makes me feel uncomfortable?

From the chapter: Developing a critical thinking identity is an ongoing process, and it doesn’t make us immune to dealing with problems or making bad choices. It just gives us the best chance of avoiding the problems we can avoid, and for those we can’t, making a better decision than we would have without a critical appraisal of the situation. A society will undermine its own longer-term prospects unless enough of its citizens possess this identity.

From the chapter: Those who want to see reality as clearly as possible must be more committed to holding evidence-based beliefs than to “being right” about the beliefs they currently hold.

From the chapter: The transition towards sustainable societies requires us to become more comfortable with doubt and the unknown because the journey is unprecedented, and because no source, including scientific research, provides absolutely certain truth. The challenge of developing and maintaining trust in one another and in our governments will become even more essential than it is today.

From the chapter: School doesn’t teach us how to systematically analyze the society we live in. That means most of us lack not only the information we’d need to transform our society in a positive way, but also that we don’t see ourselves as the kind of people responsible for deeply analyzing and acting on the big problems facing our society. To create a new society, everyday people must start to see themselves as people who actively learn about the collective problems we face and commit to addressing them.

What’s one takeaway?

Our ability to think critically about a topic depends in large part on possessing knowledge about the topic, argues cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham. For example, everyday people can be empowered to evaluate claims about technology’s role in an ecological transition if they learn enough about technological feasibility. In my view, that’s a crucial and hopeful observation. Critical thinking isn’t simply about the abilities you’re born with. The better you become at learning and the more effort you spend diving into a topic, the more capable you’ll be of thinking critically about it.

If you’re interested in reading a draft of this book and providing feedback, please subscribe here at freedomsurvival.org.

Check out the previous post, which announced this “writing in public” experiment and my goals for this book. Or read the next post, which discusses early work on a chapter about the values of sustainable and democratic societies.

The post Critical Thinking: Vital for Creating Sustainable and Democratic Societies appeared first on Freedom and Survival.

1) Empower everyday people with a nuanced and actionable understanding of the existential issues we face.

2) Support educators in preparing students to navigate the complex societal transition we need.

3) Encourage activists to scale up this collective “revolution of the mind.”

I’m mentioning this because I’ve decided to try an experiment: sharing parts of the process along the way. It’s the opposite of my preferred approach, which is to only post fully developed thoughts and to leave myself and my process completely in the background. I’m trying out “writing in public” because I’d like to reach people who are thinking about these issues long before the writing is done, raise awareness about this project, and also solicit feedback on my drafts to ensure the final versions are as effective as possible in supporting the transition.

The plan is to publish two or three books as part of a transition guidebook series. To learn to embrace ecological limits, we must become more intellectually active and knowledgeable, ethically aware, and emotionally self-regulating. These traits together help establish the kind of “transition culture” that I wrote about in my essay on the need for a new Enlightenment. Book one explores how to achieve this inner transformation, and I’m aiming to publish it late next year. Book two will provide a systems analysis of our society that we’ll need to plan the transition. It will be a fleshed-out version of my climate activism curriculum model. Book three will dive deeper into various complex and challenging topics we’ll face on the journey towards new societies.

For this experiment, I’ll offer larger monthly updates and more frequent posts in between about my inspiration for this work, my research methods, insights I discover, writing progress, excerpts from the book, and more.

If you’re interested in reading a draft of this book and providing feedback, please subscribe here at freedomsurvival.org.

Check out the first writing update, which highlights some of the ideas and research from my chapter on developing a “critical thinking identity” to advance the transition.

The post Writing a Guidebook for An Ecological Transition appeared first on Freedom and Survival.

1. Introduction (this article)
2. Mitigation Modeling
3. Demand Management
4. Technological Potential
5. Power Relationships
6. Conclusion: Developing an intellectually and politically active culture

A recent commentary notes that “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded as the most important and authoritative source on climate change, its impacts and how to tackle the rising emissions that drive it.” In March 2022, the IPCC released the mitigation-focused portion of its sixth assessment report (AR6), which explores humanity’s options for addressing the threat of climate breakdown. It is the product of thousands of scientists who assemble a picture of the state of scholarly understanding on climate action every few years. As an activist, I believe that diving into the report can offer useful lessons in climate action epistemology.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. It deals with questions about what constitutes knowledge and claims about what we know and how we know it. For those whose task is to evaluate different approaches to solving the climate crisis, there is a lot of information to sift through and either synthesize into the bigger picture or disregard. And then there are decisions about how much attention to give to each included perspective. The only way we can be sure that the recommendations emerging from the research actually match the scale of the crisis is by trying to analyze that filtering and framing process. This is epistemology applied to the domain of climate action. Activists pushing for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels must be concerned with identifying the limits we face, the opportunities we have, and the likely outcomes of different action plans given the circumstances at hand. The IPCC report should, in theory, capture the views of academics on these questions.

But despite the immense amount of research it attempts to summarize, the IPCC cannot necessarily be expected to provide a perfect analysis of possible solutions. Plenty of relevant sources in books and non-scholarly articles are not consulted in its knowledge-gathering process. A poor picture can also result from issues in the underlying literature cited by the report. Apparent shortcomings of the report may stem from these limitations rather than its authors. Even with these caveats, it remains a 2,000-page encyclopedia of the research that shapes our understanding and discussions about climate action, and therefore deserves our scrutiny.

Before exploring the report’s contents, we should consider some of the foundational ideas highlighted in its first few chapters. When evaluating our mitigation options, the authors attempt to pay attention to several dimensions of feasibility. It’s incredibly important not only for the IPCC to consider these details, but for activists to do so as well. Feasibility analyses ultimately try to answer fundamental questions: what obstacles impede the transition to a zero-carbon economy, and to what extent can technology solve them? Basically, we are asking how hard the transition is likely to be, how much lifestyle change and disruption may be involved, and what level of preparation the public might need to support the process. These are key ideas for anyone involved in envisioning and planning for a successful transition.

The authors acknowledge that previous IPCC reports have tended to ask only what technology can do to address climate change. “While previous ARs dealt with the definition of alternative mitigation pathways mostly exploring the technological potentials, latest research focused on what kind of mitigation pathways are feasible in a broader sense, underlining the multi-dimensional nature of the mitigation challenge.” The six “dimensions of feasibility assessment” considered in the report are:

• Geophysical, not only the global risks from climate change but also, for technology assessment, the global availability of critical resources.
• Environmental & ecological, including local environmental constraints and co-benefits of different technologies and pathways.
• Economic, particularly aggregate economic and financial indicators, and [Sustainable Development Goals] reflecting different stages and goals of economic development.
• Socio-cultural, including particularly ethical and justice dimensions, and social and cultural norms.
• Technological, including innovation needs and transitional dynamics associated with new and emergent technologies and associated systems.
• Institutional & political, including political acceptability, legal and administrative feasibility, and the capacity and governance requirements at different levels to deliver sustained mitigation in the wider context of sustainable development.

The trade-offs of different mitigation options are another vital concept discussed in the report. While co-benefits are often highlighted, like lower air pollution as a result of reduced fossil fuel use, new or exacerbated issues can also result from our attempts to reduce carbon emissions. Acknowledging these trade-offs is a key part of assessing feasibility and developing robust transition policies. The report highlights many possible complications of the large-scale deployment of emission-cutting technologies—“Areas with anticipated trade-offs include food and biodiversity, energy affordability/access, and mineral resource extraction.” These of course are not small areas.

Chapter two examines emissions trends and the forces driving them, suggesting places to focus our mitigation efforts. This is where we begin to see some potentially major shortcomings of the report (or perhaps its underlying literature). The IPCC is clear on the main drivers of increasing emissions over time: economic and population growth. As human numbers and our systems of production and consumption have expanded, so has fossil fuel use. Previous IPCC reports have presented literature that assumes this growth can and will continue, and have explored the feasibility of rapidly reducing emissions almost exclusively through technological solutions. That narrow approach is the one that societies have actually taken. The current report summarizes the results:

“Technological improvements (e.g., improved energy or land-use intensity of the economy) have shown a persistent pattern over the last few decades, but gains have been outpaced by increases in affluence (GDP per capita) and population growth, leading to continued emissions growth.”

Increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy have been overwhelmed by the growing scale of human societies. The ensuing sentence highlights broad areas to explore in mitigation planning:

“The key gap in knowledge therefore is how these drivers of emissions can be mitigated by demand management, alternative economic models, population control and rapid technological transition.”

Those four action areas make a lot of sense to explore. Developing zero-carbon energy systems is in large part a technological matter and it’s clearly essential, but it isn’t the only key topic. Demand management, which examines ways to reduce our resource consumption through changes to lifestyles and more efficient modes of organizing society, is also crucial. Yet 2022 was the first year that the IPCC report included a designated chapter on demand management. The other two topics would address the primary drivers of emissions directly. However, alternative economic models (that presumably prioritize well-being or other goals besides economic growth) and approaches to stabilizing and gradually reducing human population size are almost never explicitly discussed in the report. It’s hard to understand why that is, considering the consequences of leaving them unchecked. For example, the authors note that “The highest emissions scenarios in the literature result in global warming of >5°C by 2100, based on assumptions of rapid economic growth and pervasive climate policy failures.” They also identify “high levels of global population growth” as one of the “high mitigation challenges” that “may render modelled pathways that limit warming to 2°C (>67%) or lower infeasible.” Thus despite its own acknowledgement that technological solutions have never been able to cut emissions sufficiently, the report appears to remain a considerably technology-centric document.

These omissions are huge, because they lead people to neglect any role for alternative economics and population stabilization in addressing the climate crisis. The report could draw on well-established heterodox economic literature, particularly the discipline of ecological economics, which has a non-growing economic system as a focal point of its research. This would get people thinking about the sorts of institutional changes that could shift our economic goal from profit maximization to meeting basic needs within ecological limits. The report could also draw on the work of demographic experts who offer nuanced perspectives on the role of population growth in the ecological issues we face and evidence of the rapid fertility changes that are possible through non-coercive population policies. The IPCC report itself notes how different ideas about mitigation lead to very diverse approaches:

“Different sets of beliefs can shape climate-related policies, targets, and instruments. First, beliefs [may] link climate governance with social justice concerns; policies, targets and instruments may therefore reflect justice issues. Second, climate mitigation may be seen as primarily a market correction issue and mitigation compatible with economic growth, as exemplified by ecological modernisation, climate capitalism, market logics or a global commons approach. Third, climate governance may be understood relative to policies on technological innovation and progress, often conceptualised as social-technical transformations.”

The way we frame climate change has significant implications for what feasibility constraints, trade-offs, assumptions, and opportunities we pay attention to, and ultimately what targets we set and the policies we design to achieve them. IPCC reports have long been built from beliefs that center market logic, limitless growth, and technological responses to human problems.

This series begins by examining the role that climate mitigation models play in the report’s findings. It then explores the two mitigation areas mentioned above that receive significant attention in the report: technological solutions and demand management. Lastly, it reviews the report’s comments on how power struggles impact efforts to address the climate crisis. The analysis draws from many parts of the report that provide a high-level discussion of these areas (chapters 1-6, 12, 13, 16, and 17). One approach taken in this series is to compare different statements made in the report on the same topic, which at times suggest different ways of understanding the transition and how challenging it may be. Another approach taken is to add context by considering questions or consulting sources that aren’t covered much or at all by the authors. The result is an exploration of climate action epistemology.

The next article in this series takes a critical look at the perceptions created by climate mitigation modeling.

The post Climate Action Epistemology Part 1: An Activist’s Analysis of the IPCC Mitigation Report appeared first on Freedom and Survival.

1. Introduction
2. Mitigation Modeling (this article)
3. Demand Management
4. Technological Potential
5. Power Relationships
6. Conclusion: Developing an intellectually and politically active culture

When the IPCC mitigation report comments on the possibilities and likely effects of different emissions reduction strategies, it usually relies on quantitative integrated assessment models (IAMs) to do so. The authors review findings from over 100 models that have produced over 1,000 climate action scenarios. IAMs combine assumptions about the economy, technology, and climate policies to generate emissions projections and explore different types of futures. Models are an important planning tool, but we need to evaluate the assumptions they’re built from, because inputting an unsound picture of the world can lead us towards an inadequate response to the climate crisis. The report acknowledges that global emissions pathways “have to be assessed with the careful recognition of these assumptions.” However, on the same page the authors also state that the “IPCC is neutral with regard to the assumptions underlying the scenarios in the literature assessed in this report, which do not cover all possible futures.” This begs the question: who evaluates the feasibility of the assumptions behind these IAMs if not the IPCC?

Thankfully, some researchers do take on this task, and perhaps no one has done more to expose various implausible assumptions behind many IAMs than climate scientist Kevin Anderson. In a recent paper, he and other scholars point towards the approach taken with today’s climate action models as one of nine reasons why emissions haven’t been seriously addressed after 30 years of study and international negotiations. One limitation they note is models’ reliance on mainstream (neoclassical) economic theory, which tends to reject mitigation actions that could disrupt the current consumption-maximizing economy. Another is models’ increasing reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies that envision drawing large amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, though the technologies involved remain unproven and face significant barriers to scale. The major issue is how highly questionable assumptions like these tend to delay serious climate action by making marginal rates of change seem legitimate and suggesting that technological innovation will do all of the heavy lifting.

Let’s consider a few implications of some mainstream modeling practices. We know that models increasingly incorporate currently non-existent negative emissions technologies (NETs). They also tend to be global in scope and fail to incorporate international equity—the idea that wealthier nations should decarbonize earlier than those with fewer resources. The result is that the timeframe they suggest for reaching net zero emissions is much longer than what many nations must achieve to meet consensus climate goals. The IPCC report says that aiming for a 1.5°C warming limit requires the world to achieve “50% CO2 reductions in the 2030s, relative to 2019, then reduce emissions further to reach net zero CO2 emissions in the 2050s. Pathways limiting warming to 2°C (>67%) reach 50% reductions in the 2040s and net zero CO2 by 2070s.” Anderson and his colleagues show that when excluding NETs and taking equity into account, wealthy nations must actually decarbonize their energy system between 2035 and 2040—up to 30 years before the global picture suggested by mainstream models. That entails historically unprecedented rates of emissions reductions above 10% year after year, at least double the rate that supposedly “climate progressive” nations are considering.

One of the key assumptions in any model is how it represents the main emissions drivers, economic and population growth. Recall the IPCC’s acknowledgement that high levels of growth are the very conditions that could make it impossible to keep warming below 2°C and even threaten a 5°C increase, which would render large parts of the planet uninhabitable. Across the models assessed by the report, the population is expected to grow from 7.6 billion in 2019 to 8.5-9.7 billion in 2050 (growth of 10-30%) and to 7.4-10.9 billion in 2100 (a wide range from a slight decline to an increase of 40% compared to 2019). However, these figures could be a significant understatement, as the authors observe that the UN’s population projections “include considerably higher values for both the medium projection and the high end of the range.” The economy is assumed to grow 2.5-3.5% annually up to 2050 and then around 1-2% to 2100. The economy is therefore expected to “at least double” in size between 2020 and 2050 and continue expanding throughout the century. There is little discussion about whether these growth assumptions are compatible with maintaining a stable climate.

The idea that we can unlink the longstanding connection between economic growth and emissions growth, called “decoupling,” is behind the assumption that the economy will continue to expand. Relative decoupling occurs when our mitigation efforts cause emissions to increase at a slower rate relative to economic growth. What we’re banking on is absolute decoupling, which is when emissions stand still or even decrease while the economy grows. Interestingly, in different chapters of the IPCC report, statements about the possibility of decoupling become more contextualized and critical:

• Chapter 1: “Recent evidence shows countries can grow their economies while reducing emissions,” the report states assertively. Without further context, it sounds like decoupling is a viable strategy for keeping warming to tolerable levels alongside continued economic growth.
• Chapter 4: A few chapters later, the report is much more cautious about whether decoupling has actually occurred, which throws the initial assertion into question. “While some literature indicates that absolute decoupling of economic growth and [greenhouse gas] emissions has occurred in some countries, a larger systematic review found limited evidence of this.”
• Chapter 2: “Absolute decoupling is not sufficient to avoid consuming the remaining CO2 emission budget under the global warming limit of 1.5°C or 2°C and to avoid climate breakdown. Even if all countries decouple in absolute terms this might still not be sufficient and thus can only serve as one of the indicators and steps toward fully decarbonising the economy and society.” Here a more fundamental point is added. Even if absolute decoupling has been achieved, the magnitude is far from what would be needed year after year until emissions reach zero. The main question is not whether any level of absolute decoupling is possible over any period of time, but instead whether enough decoupling is possible over a long-enough period of time to allow economies to grow as expected while reducing emissions at sufficient rates to avoid extremely dangerous warming. Assumptions of continued growth in IAMs are based on the idea that the answer is “yes.”

Chapter six observes that IAMs tend to “overestimate the contributions by energy efficiency,” which has historically been the main technological counterweight to rising emissions (i.e. larger than the effect of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy technologies). Achieving deep emissions reductions alongside economic growth would rely in part on increasing energy efficiency. However, the same chapter later states that “Industry has seen major efficiency improvements in the past, but many processes are now close to their thermodynamic limits.” This raises a number of questions. We can ask whether such limits are well-represented in models. If they’re not, that could be one of the reasons why models often expect more efficiency gains than are realized. A bigger question is why thermodynamic limits aren’t recognized and discussed more broadly. That could entail looking into the limits of efficiency not just in industry but across all sectors, down to the very foundation of our economy, which is bound by these same limits and therefore cannot grow forever. If IAMs recognized thermodynamic limits in a fundamental sense—which would be the case if instead of relying on neoclassical economic theory they drew from ecological economics—then assumptions about a doubling or tripling of the economy across this century couldn’t pass without serious scrutiny.

Despite claiming neutrality about the IAMs’ input assumptions, the IPCC report does attempt to assess the feasibility of the resulting mitigation scenarios (i.e. model outputs) in chapter three. The authors write that “Mitigation pathways are associated with significant institutional and economic feasibility challenges rather than technological and geophysical feasibility challenges.” Yet when looking at their assessment in 2050 and 2100, geophysical challenges are expected to grow and become at least as significant as the near-term economic obstacles. Their assessment also anticipates very few socio-cultural feasibility constraints, which only seems possible if the transition doesn’t fundamentally conflict with cultural pillars like consumerism, the unbridled pursuit of personal wealth, and extreme economic inequality. Warnings about the feasibility picture produced by IAMs appear throughout the report:

• Chapter 4: There may be unacknowledged or unrecognized economic or social trade-offs that complicate rapid emissions reductions. “While the technology elements of accelerated mitigation pathways at [the] national level are generally well documented, studies of the economic and social implications of such pathways remain scarce.”
• Chapter 6: There could also be overlooked technological, political, or cultural barriers. While IAMs have underestimated the cost declines of key renewable energy technologies like wind turbines and batteries in recent years, which should help make the transition faster, “they tend to be too optimistic regarding the timing of action, or the availability of a given technology and its speed of diffusion. Furthermore, some technological and economic transformations may emerge as technically feasible from IAMs, but are not realistic if taking into account political economy, international politics, human behaviours, and cultural factors.”
• Chapter 16: Ecological barriers may also not receive enough scrutiny. Processes of technological change occur within societies and ecosystems, and must be modeled with special attention to their effects on these systems. “Simplifications of complex interactions between physical and social systems and incomplete knowledge of the indirect effects of technological innovation may systematically lead to underestimation of environmental impacts and overestimation of our ability to mitigate climate change.”

Constraints within essentially all feasibility dimensions are mentioned as possible complications for the validity of model outputs. This is an issue whenever journalists, policymakers, and the public believe that the message emerging from a model is conclusive. The amount of complexity involved, and the long timeframes over which solutions are explored, mean that there is so much we cannot know. We don’t sufficiently acknowledge the uncertainty involved in projecting the future, particularly when modeling rapid transitions. The IPCC authors point out that “there is often limited discussion of uncertainty and of its implication for hedging strategies in the accelerated mitigation pathway literature.” If we aren’t clear about how much uncertainty surrounds the model’s outputs, then we may not plan for potentially significant obstacles to the transition.

As we have seen, the assumptions from which IAMs are built, if not sound, have massive implications. They would suggest that all human societies can continue growing and increasing their consumption, and can reduce fossil fuel use at a slower pace than is actually necessary to avoid climate breakdown. IAMs may also lead us towards particular emissions reduction strategies without sufficiently considering the obstacles they face. Thus despite the report’s discussion of feasibility, it appears that an excessive reliance on models and an insufficiently critical approach to their recommendations may prolong today’s high emissions rates and make dangerous climate change more likely.

There are ways to reduce the likelihood of inadequate climate planning. One key is to think seriously about reducing our demand for energy and materials rather than assuming it will continue growing. The potential impacts of reducing demand and shifting towards more sustainable societies, considered for the first time in some models cited by this report, emerge as vital for increasing the ecological and technological feasibility of emissions reductions. “Many challenges, such as dependence on CDR, pressure on land and biodiversity (e.g., bioenergy) and reliance on technologies with high upfront investments (e.g., nuclear), are significantly reduced in modelled pathways that assume using resources more efficiently (e.g., IMP-LD) or that shift global development towards sustainability (e.g., IMP-SP).” These benefits are perhaps gained in exchange for greater challenges to political feasibility, but these challenges may be easier to overcome than constraints imposed by physical limits and ecosystem collapse. Given that demand management and sustainability strategies appear crucial to our mitigation plans, we should ask whether other crucial details are currently left out of mainstream IAMs.

Another key is to think about what place models should have in our planning processes. What questions can we attempt to answer with them? What are their limits? It appears that climate policy may currently rely too heavily on IAMs. It’s vital that we consider multiple sources of information to get a more holistic and accurate picture of reality, including analyses of real-world mitigation efforts, studies of relevant issues not acknowledged in the model (e.g. the likely climate impacts of growing emissions), history, theory, and forums for deliberation.

We also need to ensure that the models we use are built from sound assumptions, and that society understands how to interpret their findings. Reading through the critiques from academics and the subsequent responses from modelers is an important part of that process. But who does that? Activists must be aware of these critiques and bring this information to the public to have any chance at informed decision-making. That way we’ll all have a stronger understanding of what action at the scale of the crisis entails, and be able to evaluate policymakers’ climate plans.

Next we examine what the IPCC and the models it draws on say about demand management.

The post Climate Action Epistemology Part 2: Mitigation Modeling in the IPCC Mitigation Report appeared first on Freedom and Survival.