Maybe more science fiction TV shows & movies. Popular culture probably impacts more people than the "traditional" media. Maybe professional wrestling can take up the theme.... But you're right, Phil, it is a gargantuan, systemic, problem of both capitalism and growth-oriented regimes, that requires that level of thinking to begin to grasp/understand; plus there's the problem of conceiving how it's possible to stop something like that. Back to the movies.....
I'd say the reason there isn't a great upwelling by the masses (progressives included) is because, at least subconciously, there's an understanding that living standards are indivisibly tied to capitalism. So the notion would be that if capitalism sinks then we're all standing in bread lines and all the "goodies" we take for granted are going away. This is what capitalism defeated when it outlasted the Soviet Union. This is, at base, why "pure" socialism is such an impossibly hard sell in this country. There is no competing(or compelling) narrative that removes capitalism from the picture without a drastic lowering of living standards. Absent the string of massive, unignorable catastrophes that are coming down the pike, I don't expect that calculus to change much at all. In a word, fucked.
I basically agree, but the Degrowth movement - if one can call it a movement at all -
(https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-05-07/is-degrowth-an-academic-field-or-a-mass-movement-taking-degrowth-to-the-people/) addresses the issue you raise. A Degrowth economy, as opposed to a recession, targets addictive consumption and wealth inequality while building up human services, safety nets and "the commons" - those things that are owned by the community as a whole - parks, libraries and, presumably, educational and athletic facilities. At the heart of Degrowth - as I understand it - is an adherence to the adage "money can't buy happiness." Happiness in a downsized economy would come from a sense of security (guaranteed housing, employment, and medical care) and a focus on community cooperation. It is a good bit utopian, and the battle to push it through corporate resistance is almost inconceivable. The problem that I am addressing in this piece involves the shirked role that left leaning media has played in not presenting debates and exploration of climate remediation ideas. They have left readers out to dry on the most critical of all issues.
There is also the idea of "luxury communism" promoted by Aaron Bastani that proposes that socialism and intense consumption can manifest in a system that bypasses planetary limits with high tech. This is a form of eco modernism that I think is bullshit, but the debate should have a platform.
Yes, very utopian as you say. Without any polical power ( as in having an actual party with a platform, good luck there) it's not going anywhere. Sure, it could be disruptive (via strikes, mass protests, etc.) but to what end? It would likely peter out with little to show for it.
Outside of the odd communist, I would propose that the left-leaning media generally aren't keen on preaching the ditching of capitalism because they realize it's a pipe-dream to even try and they value their "credibility", but also that they benefit from it's bounty like so many of us do. It is a case of killing the golden goose, even if that goose is going to kill us in the end.
This isn't to say that degrowth is a bad idea, far from it. It's imperative, starting with population. But the whole concept is, as the author of the piece states, "vague and ambiguous" which doesn't give one much to rally around.
One might also ask why leftist media isn't up in arms regarding the increasing threat of nuclear annihilation? Certainly it is a threat that is potentially more imminent than cataclysmic climate change. The anti-nuke movement is a shell of it's former self, the end of the first cold war put everyone to a sleep that continues to this day. Perhaps it is the case for both civilization-ending threats that feelings of powerlessness/hopelessness (and a bit of denial) pervade and the "easier" low-hanging fruit of poverty, conventional war, union busting, etc. have a better psychic ROI for the leftist media and leftists in general.
And Nukes may be a part of the climate feedback loop - as international tensions escalate due to food shortages, environmental catastrophes and a growing number of climate refugees, the chance that some fascist autocrat will put an impulsive finger on the nuclear button increases. As the world goes down in a whirlpool of climate damage, we are unlikely to resort to logic and common sense. Crazy begets more crazy.
Yeah for sure, when your in a big hole our best response has been to just keep digging it bigger. Human behavior simply confounds. Maybe our only realistic hope is for an alien intervention ( ala "The Day the Earth Stood Still" )....so keep watching the skies and pray for a superior race to come and save us from ourselves.
Maybe more science fiction TV shows & movies. Popular culture probably impacts more people than the "traditional" media. Maybe professional wrestling can take up the theme.... But you're right, Phil, it is a gargantuan, systemic, problem of both capitalism and growth-oriented regimes, that requires that level of thinking to begin to grasp/understand; plus there's the problem of conceiving how it's possible to stop something like that. Back to the movies.....
Phil,
I'd say the reason there isn't a great upwelling by the masses (progressives included) is because, at least subconciously, there's an understanding that living standards are indivisibly tied to capitalism. So the notion would be that if capitalism sinks then we're all standing in bread lines and all the "goodies" we take for granted are going away. This is what capitalism defeated when it outlasted the Soviet Union. This is, at base, why "pure" socialism is such an impossibly hard sell in this country. There is no competing(or compelling) narrative that removes capitalism from the picture without a drastic lowering of living standards. Absent the string of massive, unignorable catastrophes that are coming down the pike, I don't expect that calculus to change much at all. In a word, fucked.
I basically agree, but the Degrowth movement - if one can call it a movement at all -
(https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-05-07/is-degrowth-an-academic-field-or-a-mass-movement-taking-degrowth-to-the-people/) addresses the issue you raise. A Degrowth economy, as opposed to a recession, targets addictive consumption and wealth inequality while building up human services, safety nets and "the commons" - those things that are owned by the community as a whole - parks, libraries and, presumably, educational and athletic facilities. At the heart of Degrowth - as I understand it - is an adherence to the adage "money can't buy happiness." Happiness in a downsized economy would come from a sense of security (guaranteed housing, employment, and medical care) and a focus on community cooperation. It is a good bit utopian, and the battle to push it through corporate resistance is almost inconceivable. The problem that I am addressing in this piece involves the shirked role that left leaning media has played in not presenting debates and exploration of climate remediation ideas. They have left readers out to dry on the most critical of all issues.
There is also the idea of "luxury communism" promoted by Aaron Bastani that proposes that socialism and intense consumption can manifest in a system that bypasses planetary limits with high tech. This is a form of eco modernism that I think is bullshit, but the debate should have a platform.
Yes, very utopian as you say. Without any polical power ( as in having an actual party with a platform, good luck there) it's not going anywhere. Sure, it could be disruptive (via strikes, mass protests, etc.) but to what end? It would likely peter out with little to show for it.
Outside of the odd communist, I would propose that the left-leaning media generally aren't keen on preaching the ditching of capitalism because they realize it's a pipe-dream to even try and they value their "credibility", but also that they benefit from it's bounty like so many of us do. It is a case of killing the golden goose, even if that goose is going to kill us in the end.
This isn't to say that degrowth is a bad idea, far from it. It's imperative, starting with population. But the whole concept is, as the author of the piece states, "vague and ambiguous" which doesn't give one much to rally around.
One might also ask why leftist media isn't up in arms regarding the increasing threat of nuclear annihilation? Certainly it is a threat that is potentially more imminent than cataclysmic climate change. The anti-nuke movement is a shell of it's former self, the end of the first cold war put everyone to a sleep that continues to this day. Perhaps it is the case for both civilization-ending threats that feelings of powerlessness/hopelessness (and a bit of denial) pervade and the "easier" low-hanging fruit of poverty, conventional war, union busting, etc. have a better psychic ROI for the leftist media and leftists in general.
And Nukes may be a part of the climate feedback loop - as international tensions escalate due to food shortages, environmental catastrophes and a growing number of climate refugees, the chance that some fascist autocrat will put an impulsive finger on the nuclear button increases. As the world goes down in a whirlpool of climate damage, we are unlikely to resort to logic and common sense. Crazy begets more crazy.
Yeah for sure, when your in a big hole our best response has been to just keep digging it bigger. Human behavior simply confounds. Maybe our only realistic hope is for an alien intervention ( ala "The Day the Earth Stood Still" )....so keep watching the skies and pray for a superior race to come and save us from ourselves.