Contrary to the common culture, we are living and facing constantly limits. Despite the marketing and technooptimists faith that everything is possible, it is not true that human creativity or hard work will break all potential frontiers. There is a limit on how much energy you can consume in a healthy planet, there is a limit in how efficient our process can be, there is a limit on how fast can we move, there is even a limit on economic growth. Limits are seen as the enemies of progress or evolution, but this is just a narrow way to see things.
Constraints in time, space and matter pushes innovation, leads to prioritization and makes every moment unique. Instead of trying to overcome every single apparent limit, such as death, energy density or material throughput, we should embrace a definition of enough. Freedom means also the choice of the limits that we want for our life. I choose not to work more, not to consume more, not to ask others more... I limit and moderate my life because there is virtue in it, because the wise exploration and joy of the different facets of a human, makes life full and rich.
There is a pressing conflict between excellence, competition, growth and balance. If instead of pushing our bodies, industries and definitions towards more and fighting all limits, we could pursue resilience. Stability, resilience, diversity... are very necessary qualities of any healthy system, yet we consider them as boring, old and inefficient.
Our scientific progress is all to focus on productivity growth, getting more with less, without clearly stateting the why behind that growth. Instead of working less and sharing more, we choose growth, for the sake of it, to satisfy concepts such as the markets, shareholders, development...with little connection with purpose, value and fullfilment.
Technological progress is necessary, but when guided to make life easier, healthier and more peaceful. The technological progress cannot be, as it is now a tool to concentrate power and the meaningless pursue of more growth and efficiency, if there is not a definition of suficiency we are doing like the poor hamster trap in the weeljail, just going faster or more efficient to nowhere.
There will be more regulations in the future, to force us to confront as society the limits of biodiversity loss (with virus), peak everything (rationing of materials or price regulation of commodities), and climate impacts (forcing us to reduce Co2). To avoid free riding, regulations are required, but without societal commitment to enjoy and embrace the limits of life, they are not going to be effective.
If we do not want to delegate our decision to physical or govermental forces only, we need to choice and work for a life with purpose, moderation and limits. Instead of blaming others, we must ensure everyone in the world have the right to live within their own limit terms, as long as those respect the same access to the rest.
It is too often missundertood what freedom means. Many, in difficult times where some freedoms have been compromised because of Covid, and more will as the result of reducing our emissions or energy demand, see this a violation of human rights. While not all measures taken by goverments have a good backup, it is too overlooked that ensuring hospital capacity, or the functioning of basic services can justify us not going to a exotic place, drinking beer in a disco or just joining big crowds. Without exeption everyone benefits of the commons (water, air, universal health care and education), but the number of people willing to compromise some freedom for the protection of the commons is just too small.
In the context of more transparent and direct democracies, rules chasing the general interest and not the ones from lobbies are a valid universal limit impossition. The more develop the society is, the less the need of such rules as people live within the bounderies of other's freedom and prosperity. If we want more freedom we need to accept to live with more voluntary limits, even if that sounds contradictory in terms.
At a personal level, I could afford to consume, drive and eat more, but I choose not to. I choose to live more locally, to consume less, particularly on those products that add little benefit to my life and too much of a bill to the world. I do it because I believe that makes me free of the never ending pursue of more. I choose enough, and this is powerful.
Limits are choose at the individual level, but should be at organizational level, particularly when the required changes in our system must happen in years. The times of cheap oil and materials, big planet and small economies are over. We need to ensure that voluntarily and with laws, those who consume, produce and at the end of the day share a bigger responsability of the enforced limits, reduce more drastically than others their footprint on the commons.
Instead of dreaming on technological ways out to limits, it is exactly the recognition of that bounderies that should project us to share more, have less, live more...focusing on innovation that is more inclusive in the benefits,and focused on making living within limits as enjoyable as possible.
We do not need to choose between growth or innovation, technoptimism or pessimism. The amount of possible futures pursuing resilience, stability and diversity are almost limitless. Make sure you are the one choosing your limits, before thermodynamics laws or the irresponsible powerful elites choose yours.
Comments
Post a Comment