My Italian needed a refresher. I am very sorry for all the other languages out there, but I think Italian is the most beautiful language. It is not just the language, it is everything that accompanies it. I might be biased because of childhood memories, but it lets my heart sing. It was quite confronting how rusty my Italian has become over the years. The Ecological Economics summer school offered a great opportunity, not only to catch up on Ecological Economics topics, but also to practice my Italian a little bit. I have to express my gratitude to an old friend who suffered through listening to my bad rusty Italian. Attending the summer school thus also allowed me to finally see an old friend again!
It was my third time in Pisa, but the first time that I spent several days in this beautiful city. I remember the first time; I was a child and completely stunned by seeing the leaning tower. It was very surreal. The second time in Pisa, I was much older. I stayed in Florence for four weeks to study Italian. Whenever I had time, I traveled around. One of my trips led me to Pisa. I have to admit, at that time I was not impressed. I thought: “It is only the tower. There is nothing else interesting.” Well, I changed my mind. Pisa has a lot to offer. I am not necessarily talking about the sights but about the atmosphere and the typical Italian flair. Part of my experience was renting a bike and visiting the local boulder gym. I am spoiled by the Dutch bike lanes, thus the way to the boulder gym felt a bit sketchy. The bike also allowed me to go to a local organic supermarket where I got some fruit, vegan yogurt (for the proteins), some vegan and gluten-free cookies, and sunscreen (which I forgot to bring along). I had an obligatory cheat meal on a trip to Lucca. A proper Pizza. I had plenty of ice cream and good coffee. Every morning on the way to the summer school I would stop at this little café to have a doppio espresso al banco. I would skim through the newspaper and enjoy my coffee. On day two they already knew my order and on the last day they said goodbye with a: “ciao bella.” I felt integrated and could imagine this going on for a little longer, but the time was already over.
The summer school had the title Leveraging Ecological Economics to advance the Sustainability Transition and was organized by the University di Pisa. If you read my last blog post, then you know that I just came back from the Ecological Economics conference. Thus, I could reconnect with the community twice this year. I also have to correct something. I actually already attended an Ecological Economics Conference. I had completely forgotten about it. But when Professor Julia Steinberger held her opening lecture on the first day of the summer school, I was reminded that I attended an Ecological Economics Conference in 2015 in Leeds. It was self-funded as I had just finished my Master’s and tried to stay in research. I remember that I saw a presentation by Kate Raworth on the Doughnut economy and that I was impressed by her presentation skills. It reminded me more of a pitch by Steve Jobs or so. But I thought to myself that this is how it should be done. The whole room was captured. And well, we know that the Doughnut Economy concept has become a success.
I knew Julia Steinberger because of her association with the Social Ecology Institute in Vienna (which is now part of BOKU). As a student, I took several courses at that institute and if I had a greater affinity for numbers, I would have loved to do material flow analysis. Thus, I very much appreciate the methods applied at this institute and the work done by Professor Steinberger. Ecological Economics topics very much feel like getting back to the roots. Though, I surely have developed further since I have been a master’s student. When I wrote my thesis (about ecological and environmental economics), I was the inquiring student. Now, I have formed my own opinions on the topic and certainly, there are things I would not agree with. Though, I want to stress that I try to keep a beginner’s mind (as Kino MacGregor would say). I try to stay open and not to get locked in just for the sake of (cognitive) comfort.
We had to read a bunch of texts to prepare for the classes. Already while reading I was positively surprised by literature covering the adaptive cycle and Panarchy theory. Readers of the blog, might know, that I quite like the adaptive cycle and Panarchy theory. In my work, I do not hear much about these approaches, because alternative approaches dominate transition studies. In fact, this domination is the topic of my latest article that I published together with Sabrina Chakori. I also presented this at the summer school and was happy to chat about it with fellow participants. ***End of shameless plug*** I think that the adaptive cycle and Panarchy theory need to be covered much more by lecturers. Many students have never heard of it and admittedly it might be harder to understand than the fancy version of the S-curve (aka multi-level perspective). I still think it is a worthwhile endeavor because the adaptive cycle offers an alternative way of thinking about change and / or transformations. Moreover, it rids us of framing the world as a socio-technical construct, without neglecting the role of technology.
Part of the lectures were about Binary Economics. While I acknowledge and understand the noble aspiration of this concept, I am not quite convinced by it. The argument (now here is the test if I understood it all well) is that income is generated through labor and capital (hence binary). In modern economies, the share of income generated by capital increased, while the share generated by labor stayed constant. This contributed to the increasing disparity between rich and poor, because the latter have less access to capital and thus have to rely on labor to generate income. The simple solution is to provide the poor with access to capital. I get it. I also think about how it would be nice to buy an apartment. Not for myself, but simply to earn rent. And if I could, I’d do it. Because why not. Thus, I get the concept and given the logic of the current system, I would 100% go along with it. Given the sustainability problem globally, though, I do not see this as a solution. Rather it might contribute to aggravating the problem.
1) We always need someone who rents the apartment. Otherwise, this idea does not work. Thus, there always have to be people who do not have access to capital and thus cannot just buy (a second home) to rent it out. 2) The Binary Economics concept does not criticize the profit mechanism. The exorbitant profits made are based on exploitation. If we would end this, then profits from capital would be much lower and thus less appealing. I’d argue that if all people would get a fair pay, if all environmental externalities would be internalized (which I do not advocate for, because of potential adverse effects), we could not earn that much from capital. The fair pay is the minimum requirement for people to save money and to then access capital. 3) It seems to suggest some sort of disconnect between economy and biophysical reality. Let’s say the capital rent is based on the digital economy and thus we might think that it is disconnected from real economy and thus from real negative social or environmental effects. I am not an expert on the digital economy, but I doubt that it is disconnected. Servers need to be built, they need infrastructure, electricity, cooling, etc. I would argue that to a certain degree, the digital nature might increase consumption because we do not see the exchange. Like we are shocked when we spend a 50€ bill, but we are not shocked when we use our card to pay (the feedback loop is removed). Within the digital economy, we are still exchanging goods (that require resources) and people are still working. Probably the digital economy has led to a worsening of circumstances. I find it very comfortable to get a book with one click. But I do not want to work for Amazon. Not after what we know about the working conditions. And I also do not think that such business models reduce environmental pressures either. 4) As the Binary Economy does not criticize the profit mechanism, it also does not criticize overconsumption. To generate profits (even from capital) someone needs to consume, and something needs to be produced. On a finite planet, there are clear limits to production and consumption. That is the usual debate that degrowthers have to conduct. If we all consume less, we will have a recession. The difference though is that degrowthers would suggest an alternative economic system that is not based on profits (economic growth). Thus, while the Binary Economy might have some solution forbalancing wealth distribution, I do not see how this would reduce the negative environmental impact of economic activity.
One participant asked a question, I loved. “Hypothetically, if we managed to install an automated world, in which no one needs to work, because all is done by machines. Why should we then still have markets?” The professor did not quite provide a satisfactory reply. I would argue we would not need markets. In general, I think that the economy is changeable. It is man-made and can be anything we want it to be. It is not a fair system, because we want it to be like this and we do not change it because there are enough people who profit from it. I forgot where I read it, but the economic system only works, because we all agree on believing in it. I agree on getting numbers transferred to an account, trusting I can exchange the numbers for goods. The same would be true if I got my salary as fancy paper. That’s the difference between economics and natural science. Gravity exists whether or not I believe in it. We ought not to pretend that modern societies are the way they are because of some natural law.
The professor stated that Binary Economics is not the long-term solution, but it could be a means to start a transition. I have my reservations about such suggestions. The green economy could be a means to start a transition. Only that it is not. Using the adaptive cycle and Panarchy theory, we know that what we find here is the rigidity trap. The current economic system should enter the release phase, which would allow us to (hopefully) build another economic system. But the release is inhibited by an overly rigid system. This rigidity is built on strategies that adapt the system. Though, since the adaptations are not real solutions to the problem, but only shift the problem in time and space, these strategies are maladaptive. Sooner or later, the system will crash. From Panarchy theory we know that the longer a needed release is postponed the harsher the crash. The repeatedly used example is a forest fire. A small fire is fine and needed for the recreation of the forest. But if there is no fire for a long time, much dead wood and organic matter can accumulate. At some point the forest will catch fire and because of the excess material, the fire will be much hotter. The heat has the potential to destroy seeds. Thus, the fire might destroy the basis for regeneration. Similar things can be deducted from IPCC scenarios. The longer we wait to make the needed adjustments, the more difficult it will be. A potentially smooth transition toward a low-carbon economy becomes a potentially unmanageable one. Due to the notion of the rigidity trap and concepts such as maladaptation, I am not the biggest fan of narratives that do not imply a substantial transformation of the socio-economic system.
Yet, I understand why we want to suggest soft landings. The alternative does not sound palatable. Not only that it might be chaotic. It might also mean that I have to give up on my privilege. I know I am a hypocrite; I took a flight to Pisa… I do not always practice what I preach. Still, I am aware, that this behavior is not agreeable with planetary boundaries. If we ignore the biophysical reality, it does not become less true. Gravity exists, whether or not I want to believe in it. Sure, I can believe in some distant future technology to save us all. I think unicorns are cute. That does not make them real.
Another issue I had was with the criticism of capitalism. Yes, you read this right. I do not like the constant criticism of capitalism. People stated it is not growth, it is capitalism. I’d say the problem is neither. Both are symptoms. Now, this could start a controversial debate (I know that because I had them in the past). I’d love to one day work on this. For now, my semi-informed perspective has to suffice. I think the problem is human nature. I do NOT argue that humans are only competitive. I am very well aware that humans are both completive and collaborative (Feinman & Carballo, 2018; Le Bouc & Pessiglione, 2013). Though, I’d argue that the latter also stems from a rather selfish root (survival). Let’s not forget that e.g. environmental preservation goals are usually formulated from an anthropocentric perspective. Hence, we want to preserve nature for our own sake not because of some altruistic reason.
Most of human history has been coined by lack and scarcity. To survive we competed, and we collaborated. We also learned that saving for bad times helps us to survive. I think this is how accumulation is engrained in our DNA. We might overeat now to store fat (energy), so we have some later. As we learned to conserve food, we might have thought that it is clever to conserve meat, so you have it later. You store the grain, for bad times. You make some cheese, so you have milk later without it getting spoiled. There are plenty of recipes that aim to preserve food. Think of all the pickled or smoked food. Preservation strategies have been key for human survival. We also learned that when we accumulate better than others (our competitors, with who we compete for food and a mate) we 1) have higher chances to survive, 2) have higher chances to procreate and thus secure long-term survival. We still see this in modern times. People display their wealth to increase their chances of finding a partner. The same is true for physical attributes. Granted things have become more complex, but I’d still argue at the root of it are survival strategies.
There were people who could accumulate more, so they had more power. Potentially originally literally physical power, because they were well-nourished. The accumulation of things has early on become a means of power. Center-periphery structures served to accumulate stuff while depriving others. The accumulation of stuff helped to have better armies; thus more power. Power that was used to accumulate more. The connection between accumulation and power is very obvious in modern societies. The invention of the GDP is closely tied to the need to know how much funds one has to maintain the army and how this compares to the competitors (Lepenies, 2016). Though, I argue that profit based on the exploitation of nature and people is nothing new. Exploiting the environment to the degree of collapse is neither new (Chew, 2001). Granted we have reached new scales and a high grade of sophistication in this exploitation. But the pattern is the same. And it is based on humans’ urge to survive and compete for resources.
I discussed this with other participants, and I was asked what I think about cultures that are more collaborative. 1) I do not doubt that humans are both: competitive and collaborative (even if for selfish reasons), 2) looking at the short-term time horizon competitive societies are more successful. It is competitive societies that rule the world. Sure, in the long run, it is not the more successful strategy. We are obviously destroying the basis for our survival. 3) I think that the key could be our collaborative nature. The current economic system was built to favor our competitive nature. Similarly, we could build some other economy that supports our caring side (which we would still do for selfish reasons. The alternative is overcoming the ego, thus enlightenment. I doubt that a mass enlightenment will happen any time soon).
There we come back to the argument that the economy is built on natural law. In some sense, the economy is built on natural law, because it is built on human nature. Yet, we have chosen to focus on the competitive part (well if we follow Sapolsky (2023), we are not choosing anything). It is some time ago, but when I read Adam Smith, I could not help but notice that he was a moral philosopher. Potentially, capitalism would be a perfect system if people applied a different moral code of conduct. Where does utility come from? Maybe I get utility from helping others because it gives me a feeling of belonging. Or I get utility from pushing other people around, because I live in an individualistic society where care for others does not matter. I still have not finished the book by Sapolsky (2023). However, he provides some examples of how human behavior differs depending on the culture we grow up in. Thus, is our behavior changeable? Sure. But for sure not easily changeable. Sapolsky (2023) uses a metaphor: turtles all the way down. He refers to a story that implies causality ad infinitum. Thus, the way we behave depends on how our brain is built. This depends on our environment, what we eat, how we grow up, the interactions we have, the culture we are embedded in, etc. If we all grow up in societies that cherish little narcissists, we will raise little narcissists. We cannot just change this. It requires a rewiring of our brains. Not a simple task…
One could state that this does not matter, but I argue it does. It is not helpful to blame capitalism, if we are to blame. We need to face human nature, and we need to be aware that it is part of us to act selfishly. I think that not acting selfishly requires much education and self-restraint. With most of human history being coined by scarcity it is difficult to teach ourselves not to overeat when now finally the plate is full.
This leads to another debate we had about self-restraint or sufficiency. I do not think that this is a new topic either. E.g. in Buddhism, people try to overcome desire, as it is understood that desires are a source of unhappiness. It is well understood that we always desire more, but that this will ultimately not make us happy. Desire is a moving goal. Just what happiness research shows. I also think that the minimalism trend builds on this. People realize that all the stuff does not make them happy, so they voluntarily renounce consumption. However, this is something we have to learn. Probably, I am not a good example and I should not deduce assumptions about others. But, I still overeat occasionally (meaning all the time, because it is food and food is good…). I also would buy much more stuff I do not need because it is pretty. At least for me, self-restraint is not easy. That has nothing to do with capitalism. It is because the chocolate is too good, and I like cute shoes. And I clearly see the biological mechanism. When I am very hungry, I rather crave high-calorie food. I had to educate myself quite a bit and practice self-constraint to not automatically eat the calory-dense stuff. And I might like cute shoes because I grew up in a culture that teaches you to wear cute things to attract a mate. The moving goal post also relates to other goals. I can to a handstand, but I am not happy with this. I want to learn a one-arm handstand. I can climb a 6c, now I want to climb a 7a, etc. It never ends. I think that we should not pretend that all will be fine once we rid ourselves of capitalism. We need to educate ourselves and install mechanisms that make self-restraint easier. E.g. I do not buy the super delicious truffles, because I know I cannot resist. I need to have self-talks when I train to not detroy the enjoyment of the learning process (sort of the path is the goal). We also need some cultural change, to connect the meaning of power and status to other things. It is not only since capitalism that those with more stuff have more power. As long as people think that a fast car (or a strong horse) is a symbol of power and wealth, people will want to have a fast car.
I am not so sure why discussions about human nature are so controversial. Yet, I think we partly have understood that we have to take care of it. E.g. degrowthers suggest to at least limit advertising. If humans would have perfect self-control, we would not need to limit advertising. Advertising would not exist, because it was ineffective.
Just as we have to face the reality of biophysical limits, we might have to accept that humans are not supernatural and that just riding us off capitalism will not change this.
Side story: After school I wanted to get some ice cream. I could not find a vegan ice cream that was not a sorbe (I wanted the creamy stuff). I thought, maybe it is better like this... I anyway do not need the calories (me trying to rationally counterbalance the disappointment). Then I decided to have a look at a certain streen that I only passed briefly by bike the other day. Surprisingly, there was an ice cream shop and they had vegan ice cream. Proper creamy ice cream. They even had fiori di latte (from rice milk)! This was heaven. The lady in the shop then also told me that today the walk on the city wall is for free. I felt like the luckiest person in the whole world, with my ice cream walking above the city, the leaning tower in the distance. Dolce vita!
References:
Chew, S. C. (2001). World Ecological Degradation: Accumulation, Urbanization, and Deforestation 3000 B.C. - A.D. 2000. Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littelfield Publishers, Inc.
Feinman, G. M., & Carballo, D. M. (2018). Collaborative and competitive strategies in the variability and resiliency of large-scale societies in Mesoamerica. Economic Anthropology, 5(1), 7-19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sea2.12098
Le Bouc, R., & Pessiglione, M. (2013). Imaging Social Motivation: Distinct Brain Mechanisms Drive Effort Production during Collaboration versus Competition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(40), 15894-15902. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0143-13.2013
Lepenies, P. (2016). The Power of a Single Number: Columbia University Press.
Sapolsky, R. (2023). Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will: Penguin Press.
Comments