Page added on July 23, 2012
Contrary to what many believe, we cannot extricate ourselves from the peak oil and climate change crisis we find ourselves in today simply through a technological fix. To follow such a course is to engage in the same mindset and practice that got us into our present dilemma. As we argued in last month’s column about the pursuit of unconventional petroleum, reliance upon technology alone only digs us deeper into our grave.
Yes, tools, machines and the technical skills and knowledge that creates and manipulates them, is important to a successful post petroleum transition. Used wisely, and with great sensitivity to their consequences, we can benefit from them in the years ahead.
But as our industrial civilization so painfully demonstrates, a society is not sustainable by its instruments alone. To use science and technology, as we have over the years, to conquer nature ostensibly in the interests of human beings, but invariably at the expense of other living beings (including ourselves), is the epitome of an unsustainable existence. After all, tools are instruments of power, and need to be treated as such, with all the humility and grace that such a responsibility commands. Tools can be beneficial when used mindfully; when employed unwisely, however, they become power (over) instruments, enriching some by oppressing others.
This question of technology and its uses goes to the heart of the biggest challenge we face in transitioning to a post oil world. If we are to succeed, we must move beyond the power arrangements that characterize our present unsustainable existence, so they no longer corrupt and poison our relationships with each other, and the rest of the world.
The end of human domination and exploitation is essential to a sustainable community. We cannot afford the luxury of the haves and have-nots (as if we ever could!), or the class warfare that results from such arrangements. A post petroleum society requires trusting, collaborative, peaceful relationships, ones built on an essential interpersonal integrity that is the hallmark of a just society. A sense of fairness must pervade the body politic. Despite our human differences, no one is one-down to another. A basic respect informs all of our interactions.
This is evident in the attitude that we’re all part of everyone’s sustainability, that we’re in this together. Noble sentiments and political correctness aside, self-interest dictates that being a socially just community allows us both to survive and thrive. It provides us with the social cohesion and collective wisdom — the sustainable wherewithal — required to transition successfully to this new and unknown world we’re entering.
It is no coincidence that a perfect storm of economic, political, environmental and energy crises has gathered at the very time that class divisions are the most pronounced they’ve been for at least a century. As a recent statement from our own Bernie Sanders makes clear, the inequities in our society are jaw dropping. The most recent study on income distribution, for example, showed that “in 2010, 93 percent of all new income created in the previous year went to the top one percent, while the bottom 99 percent of people had the privilege of enjoying the remaining seven percent.” As he goes on to point out, “Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America — 150 million people.”
The significance of this great disparity is underscored by research which has demonstrated that, more than poverty, the degree of inequality among people is the greatest predictor of social ills in a society. It impacts life expectancy, obesity, imprisonment rates, teenage pregnancy, mental health, levels of trust in a community, educational performance, status of women, etc., with most of the indicators being three to ten times worse in more unequal societies. Even those at the top are better off in a society that is more equal!
So how do we build a socially just community? Is it enough to simply protest the current class inequities, in the hope that our elected officials will do what’s right?
While token reforms may result from such actions, it’s dangerously naive in this day and age to expect the political establishment, and their corporate managers, to put themselves out of business by creating a truly egalitarian society. After all, it’s because of their power arrangement — them over us — that they enjoy the excessive privileges they do.
No, real change is up to us. A new government agency or elected official won’t cut it; we need to do what needs to be done ourselves, by being the egalitarian community we seek.
Fortunately, we’re already moving in this direction. As the Occupy Movement suggests, many people are awakening from the class denial that historically has dominated our consciousness as to who we are as a people, and how we see ourselves as a nation. The unconscionable disparity between the 1 percent and the rest of us is finally being acknowledged.
Now we need to take the next step and make intentional efforts in our communities to address the injustices caused by class, race, gender and other oppressive relationships. Only in that way, can we move from simply having the right sentiments and politically correct positions, to more consistently doing the right thing. A sustainable society is a just society in action. Justice is not assumed; rather, we ask in all that we do, “Is everyone at the table?”
The payoff to this approach, however, is enormous. For by addressing the inequities that currently render sustainability impossible for the marginalized in our communities, we begin to solve sustainability for everyone. No more trickle down, the new society arises from the ground.
6 Comments on "Is a class society sustainable?"
BillT on Tue, 24th Jul 2012 1:16 am
We can start by only consuming our 5% share of the world’s resources instead of the usual 30%+ that we think is our “right”. But, that is going to be very very difficult for spoiled Americans…
Mike on Tue, 24th Jul 2012 6:34 am
Let me see if I’ve got this right. Peak Oil and its aftermath is about “transition”, transition is about sustainability, and sustainability is about “social justice” and egalitarianism by eliminating “class” distinctions such as – well, apparently all distinctions.
Why is it Marxist wannabes insinuate themselves and their moronic dialectic into everything? Maybe he’s an anarcho-primitivist who can’t make up his own lines. I dunno.
But if his equality post-collapse means taking my food stores to feed his “oppressed”, expect armed resistance.
By the way, there is no such thing as “sustainability.” Nature knows nothing of it. Doesn’t exist. Life does not deliberately set out to achieve “sustainability” or symbiotic relationships. Stable ecosystems are stable in appearance only and are purely accidental and temporary. Underneath, life seeks to survive and expand – at the expense of other life if necessary. A “stable” ecosystem is a balance of power, not a willful arrangement by cognitive agreement. It has been that way for 3.5 billion years and humans are not “privileged” over other life.
There will be “classes” in the post collapse world. Get used to it. The most important division will be between “alive” and “dead.”
Newfie on Tue, 24th Jul 2012 3:17 pm
Mike, what are you smoking ? Anything which is not sustainable will cease to exist. Natural ecosystems are sustainable. Nature knows only that which is sustainable. Humans are about to find out that their civilization is unsustainable. A lot of people are going to perish.
Digger on Tue, 24th Jul 2012 7:29 pm
Well put, Mike!
@Newfie A lot will perish than it will be sustainable again… for a while! And yes, there will always be classes, even the comunist utopias argue about the superiority of the working class… go figure!
Kenz300 on Wed, 25th Jul 2012 1:51 am
Too many people and too few resources.
The ever growing world population is not sustainable and will only lead to more poverty, suffering and despair.
Access to family planning services needs to be available to all that want it.
We added a billion more people in the last 12 years and will add another billion in about 10 more. This is not sustainable.
Mike on Wed, 25th Jul 2012 4:37 am
Newfie,
I understand the angle from which you’re looking. But, ALL ecosystems rely on a base of resources which is not constant and further rely on external inputs which are not constant. Therefore, there is never stasis and stability is a temporary pattern with an expiration date. Just ask a trilobite.
Naturally, we know what people ~mean~ when they say “sustainable.” But when the concept is polluted by the worship of the static, by the false promise of bliss in agrarian simplicity, and by naked political goals with their attendant and nuanced moralisms (one man’s “social justice”, et al)…
then it’s time to remind everyone that “sustainability” is not ~real~, not some THING you can have. It is rather a much, apparently too much, idealized guideline for LIVING reasonably.
There is much more, but this is just a web board. We could discuss, for example, whether sustainability as a meme is even survivable (when the tribe over the hill is consuming, destroying, breeding) or is, in evolutionary terms, doomed to memic extinction (along with its self-restrained adherents).