How Wild Animals Are Hacking Life in the City
We can now see the outlines of an alternative to both the modern conception of unlimited growth and of the zero growth reaction: It would be a human world that embraced the dynamism and evolutionary potential of the ecologies it was part of. It would be a world of some limits, yes, but not because those limits were necessary for human survival, or even because they were required of us to meet our ethical obligations to our fellows, but because such limits would preserve the potential for the system as a whole to grow. It would be a world that grew and changed along and within its ecological context, in which human foresight and technological ingenuity was put towards the betterment of entire ecologies, and not just a single species within that ecology. Most importantly, it is a world that preserves its capacity to grow and build when such growth and building is needed⌠And to step back to rest and heal when rest and healing is needed.
I call this alternative âlong growthâ, because it requires thinking about growth not in business cycles, or even human lives, but in ecological and evolutionary time. Calling it âlong growthâ is also a deliberate riff on The Long Now Foundation, which is dedicated towards expanding the scope of human thinking into the next 10,000 years⌠Which seems a good start to me.
Long growth is not the same as centrally managed growth; limits should not in general be âhardâ (you can only use so much), but rather attempt to account for the impact of our choices, both positive and negative, on the ecologies weâre part of. Economists talk of âinternalizing the externalitiesâ, and if there is one central thesis of the idea of long growth, itâs that it is critical that we do so for all members of the ecologies we inhabit, not just for humans.
To say that this is a massive undertaking, a journey that we are at but the start of, would be an understatement. But it is not an inconceivable journey, and in fact we have already taken the first steps along this path. Over time, we will understand the consequences of our actions better, though for now it seems wisest to build in generous margins for error to account for our current limited understanding.
A âlong growth futureâ is obviously beneficial when compared to current conceptions of unlimited growth, and in fact is not opposed to the idea of âunlimited growthâ in the abstract. Instead, long growth decenters both humanity and the present moment, demanding that growth occur in a way that is a net benefit to all of us, human and non-human, present and future. Growth must occur on time scales and in ways that are sustainable; because such growth must ultimately come from the reconfiguration of entire ecosystems, it must invariable occur on ecological and evolutionary, rather than human, timescales.
By allowing for growth, we allow for sustainable changes in consumption that are driven by changes in technology, society, and population. By pricing in both human and non-human externalities, we eliminate the rigidity of current conceptions of zero growth by allowing for economic and social reconfiguration while still maintaining appropriate buffers to human resource utilization to ensure that our broader ecologies remain healthy.
Most importantly, long growth leaves open the possibility that we can temporarily exceed the current âlimitsâ should the need arise. In the event of a significant regional or global disaster, a long growth world could make the choice to over-utilize resources in order to meet the challenge (in fact, properly pricing in the externalities of inaction would demand it). After the crisis had past, it might enter an extended period of quiescence as it worked to heal the broader ecology. Such a period need not be âcontractionaryâ from an economic point of view â the difference between a âtime of healingâ and âbusiness as usualâ is more about changing the focus of human ingenuity rather than reducing resource consumption significantly âbelow normalâ (though, depending upon the nature of the disaster and extent of the response, some reduction may be necessary).
Long growth is thus the situation of human foresight and technology as part of, rather than apart from, the ecological and evolutionary process.
There are some significant challenges here, not the least of which is that a long growth future requires human institutions capable of operating at timescales beyond anything we have historic context for. Without historical antecedents, itâs essentially impossible to map out what these institutions might look like and what the necessary cultural antecedents might be. Despite this, I think it is possible to outline a general âdirectionâ in which such institutions are more likely to be found. This is a task for a later series, however, as there is much groundwork that needs to be laid first.
A more immediate issue with a (somewhat) more concrete set of solutions is the question of anti-leveling â the same dystopian concern that bedevils zero growth futures. Because while a long growth world can grow, it will generally not do so on human timescales. Thus, the question of how we can prevent resource concentration and the capture of political institutions by unaccountable elites remains pressing.
Next week weâll finish out this first series by discussing how we might counter the dystopic tendencies of both zero growth and long growth futures, how the idea of long growth makes (some of) these problems more tractable, and why it makes sense to advocate for policies addressing these concerns even if you believe that the limits of growth will never be reached.
Octopus eyes are a well-known example of convergent evolution. But have you considered the origins of octopus brains?
Nothing this edition.
The US continues to edge closer to war with North Korea.
The last few weeks have seen an increasing number of authoritarian moves by the GOP and the Trump Administration, any one of which would seem like a small thing in isolation, but together feel like an acceleration: Trump calls lack of applause during his recent State of the Union speech âtreasonousâ. Devin Nunes is planning to build an actual, physical wall to isolate Democrats in the House Intelligence Committee. The Trump Administration is planning to penalize legal immigrants if their US citizen children use benefits to which they are entitled. (Take a moment to parse the consequence of that relative to the US citizen child.)
Corey Robin wonders what it means to have a constitutional crisis divorced from a broader social crisis. Robinâs arguments are interesting, but I think heâs wrong here. There is a larger social question animating the growing (potential) constitutional crisis: To whom is the bureaucracy of the Executive Branch ultimately accountable? Is it the President, as advocates of the theory of the unitary executive maintain? Or is it to the people of the United States (via the Constitution and the laws of Congress? Put another way, does the President command or coordinate the Executiveâs functions? Before you answer this, keep in mind that while the Trump Administration has brought this issue to a head, many of the accomplishments of the later years of the Obama Administration are built on this same theory. Iâm not sure that thereâs a self-consistent legal theory that lets Obama use the EPA to draft the Clean Power Plan while at the same time forbidding Trump from closing down FBI investigations he doesnât like (or vice versa).
It seems that police in California have been working with neo-Nazis to pursue anti-fascist and anti-racist activists. Thereâs been a real concern about white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement for over a decade now. I suspect that this is a long-term strategy that is going to increasingly start paying off.
Teen mental health has precipitously deteriorated over the last decade here in the US, and the researchers studying it think that smartphones are the reason. Though itâs worth asking whether smart phones and social media are really the proximate cause of this, or if they simply exacerbate existing problems. (In the interest of full disclosure, Iâve more-or-less lifted this item from Azeem Azharâs Exponential View newsletter, which you should probably also be reading if you like Five Futures.)
Cape Town is basically out of water due to a toxic combination of environmental change and local politics. Expect to see more stories like this over the coming decades.
Does the impossibility of realizing an ideal world sometimes mean that we should adopt more radical political positions than we otherwise would?
Mutant crayfish capable of asexual reproduction are invading ecosystems across the planet.
A rumination on psychohistory, memetic entities, Dark Ages, and travel writing.