Is Ecocivilization Possible or Just A Pipe dream?

Is there a real pathway to a global ecocivilization? What is the best long-term outcome still possible for humanity, and for civilization? And what is the “least bad” path from here to there?

This is a question series I recently saw asked on a Reddit forum, and it is something I wanted to address in a longer format than that allowed by Reddit, so here I am.

The first part of this query isn’t all that difficult to answer. Is an environmentally sustainable civilization still possible to build, yes or no?

It is that second part where the misconceptions can begin to run rampant. Just how in the hell do we do it?

What is an “ecocivilization?”

First, let’s take a look at what an ecologically stable civilization would actually look like.

To keep the length of my own article here from becoming a novel, I am going to defer on that one and hand the question over to someone more knowledgeable: Geoff Dann, author of the Ecocivilisation Diaries blog as well as the book The Real Paths to Ecocivilisation. A new release that i have just barely finished reading, and one I do recommend. I won’t get into it too much here.

I will throw out a quote from that work, though:

“The concept of Ecocivilisation – Ecological Civilisation – provides an opportunity for us to start again. It originated in the Soviet Union and has in recent years become an important part of strategic policy-making in China. Ecocivilisation is the final stage or state of the social evolution of human societies – a form of civilisation which has established a stable, long-term balance with the ecosystem in which it is embedded, and is therefore sustainable indefinitely.      

The West has several related concepts already, but none of them unambiguously refers to an end state. “Sustainability” arguably ought to, but it has come to refer to attempts at sustaining our current version of civilisation while trying to minimise ecological harm, rather than aiming at a coherent vision of an ecologically sustainable civilisation. This lack of joined-up thinking is itself unsustainable. “Environmentalism” has been neutered in a similar way.”

And that is the real problem that we face. Because the vast, vast majority of people want this civilization to continue. They want us to be able to sustain the level of technology, quality of life, and services that we have grown accustomed to. And, more importantly, those who actually have the power to make decisions about these things are almost entirely of that same mind.

But, what we have now isn’t what an ecologically stable civilization would look like. A society like we have now couldn’t even function the same if ecological constraints were placed upon it. The entire basis for our current society is one of constant growth in all aspects, despite the natural limits on such growth. Such a societal requirement could never be considered sustainable in any sense, and thus trying to continue with what we have just isn’t possible. The demands for energy alone to support our rate of expansion would be crippling to any true sustainability effort.

In short, to build an ecocivilization, not only would we have to change every aspect of our civilization and how it functions, but we would have to change the minds of almost everyone on the planet to do so, culturally, socially, economically and politically.

How likely does that seem?

While we do agree about what such a civilization is, and that it is a possible thing, Mr. Dann and I do not agree completely with regards to the likely emergence of an ecologically sustainable civilization before collapse closes the door on the current one. But primarily that disagreement comes from a different understanding of human nature. Where some of us, Dann included, tend to look at what can be done or what should be done, I stay rooted in the base of what is likely to actually be done.

I do believe that we share an understanding of what an ecocivilization looks like, but where Dann believes that such a thing is more likely to come about as a result of human action before collapse, I believe that such will never be possible and that the only way forward is to go through collapse and hopefully out the other side.

It is often easier to tear down an old house and rebuild a new one than it is to try and salvage the old and bring it up to code on new standards. And humans always end up along the path of least resistance, which is only natural.

One other area where we disagree is in the amount of time remaining to accomplish the task, whatever that task may be. And that is where we venture down opposing paths, because I am of the opinion that what is possible is a moot point as there is insufficient time to make it happen, even in the very best case of scenarios. 

Why It Won’t Happen As It Should

Now that we have the setting out of the way, let me try and explain why I disagree with the parts that I do.

The problem is an issue that I actually have a bit of a hard time defining or fully explaining. And that is because my objections are rooted in the innate irrationality of humans, especially humans under stress. 

Irrational, at least, if you consider humans to naturally be more concerned with the greater good than with their own self-interest. In the context of humans being nothing more than self-serving animals like any other, it isn’t irrational at all. But I digress…

For most people who are “collapse-aware,” or otherwise conscious of the ecological damage done to the world, and the consequences of that, they still seem stuck in a thought process that such things happen in a vacuum. What I mean by that is, they will examine in great detail the projected paths of ecological destruction as it plays out, but they assume that all other factors either stay static or else progress at a gradual and predictable rate.

And that is a mistake.

For example, saying that “we will reach a certain amount of warming by a certain year, with these exact effects,” well, that may be mathematically sound, and the consequences of that warming may be exactly what is calculated by whatever method is used. But the issue is that there is an unspoken assumption that there will be no ancillary effects until that time or date is reached.

It is often an interesting phenomenon to me that so many people well versed in climate and environmental sciences seem completely oblivious with regards to geopolitics, psychology, or even economics.

Try an exercise. We have 1000 people in a room, and their food and water comes from a receptacle that they cannot access or effect.

Gradually, over a period of time, we will decrease the food by the amount needed for one person to survive per day. So, day one they get 1000 people worth of food. Day two they get food for 999 people. Day three, 998, and so on.

What happens?

Well, the scientists and mathematicians immediately start their calculations. They ask questions about the general health of people, the nutritional content of the food, the setting within their environment… and then they will usually come to a fact-based conclusion about how long it will be until the last person dies. Then, they will say, “It will be 345 days, 9 hours, and 46 minutes until there is no one left alive.”

Or whatever number, I just threw one out because I’m not a mathematician, and the math isn’t the point.

The point is that, almost every time, they will produce all this great work based on data, but arrive at a false conclusion. Because they didn’t consider factors that are more ephemeral and related closer to base human nature, animal responses, and eventually madness, frustration, anger, and insanity.

Just a few years ago, the world was on a certain trajectory along one of those mathematical equations of how long it would take for climate change to reach certain stages. But, did we continue along “business as usual?” 

Nope.

No, we actually expanded our destructive ways. What we did was start multiple wars around the globe. What we did was begin the move towards the far right of the socio-economic spectrum of things. What we are doing now, globally, is gearing up for war, burning record amounts of coal and other fossil fuels, facing mountains of unmanageable debt around the world which we add to as fast as we can, and so much more.

And that is what all the scientific models miss. Because it doesn’t matter how long it takes for the food to run out in our hypothetical room. That information is meaningless.

Because the people in the room will react as the pressure builds. Early on, some will see what’s happening, maybe do some calculations and realize that to live as long as possible, they will have to control the food source, to secure it for themselves and keep the others away. Give the rest only enough food so they can work for them, and eventually cut it off altogether when things get dire. More than one person will conclude this, and more than one group will form. Each group will realize that the other groups are a threat, and must be eliminated. 

This story continues predictably, but not steadily. The end result will always be the same. Which is that everyone in the room will probably die fighting over those resources long before they actually run out.

And that is what gets ignored when scientists say that we have this much time or that much of a resource.

Furthermore, to compound the problem, they will assume things. They will say, well, “we must take this corrective action,” and then they will continue calculations as if human nations, governments, and corporations will *actually* follow through on them.

But they won’t. Actions speak louder than words, and are far better indicators of future behavior. We have had many decades now to act differently. To mitigate, and even eliminate, some of the consequences of our destructive behaviors. 

But we didn’t. And thus, we won’t. 

Putting all these clean bits of math and ethical, rational assumptions together, we get estimates about what will happen.

And they are all wrong. Certainly, they are correct if things actually went as they figured, but is that really what we see people doing? You and I, perhaps, will try and do good things. Some nations and even corporations may sacrifice themselves for a greater good. Unlikely, but maybe. But it wouldn’t be enough. It only takes a small handful of power hungry, narcissistic, and sociopathic people in positions of power to start a nuclear war that could wipe out all of civilization… and can you really look around at the leaders of some of the most powerful nations today with hope of a different outcome?

You cannot just consider the ecological factors. The science is sound, but you must then apply that scientific result to a roomful of savagely irrational humans, because when push comes to shove on a world stage where nations are fighting for the resources to survive, that is who you will have making the decisions. 

People don’t freak out when the food runs out. They do so long, long before that. Even the rumor of not enough steak, a false rumor, is enough to send otherwise normal, productive, and law abiding citizens into a fear and [rage induced riot.](https://www.today.com/today/amp/rcna14500)

That is how the world will react. On the individual level as well as the international. It is already starting to play out.

And so, the only true path to a real ecocivilization? As it has been said, sometimes the only way out is through…

If You’re Going Through hell…

The only path that I can see now is to prepare for that inevitable collapse. The real collapse, not the fairy-tale hopium version where everything happens slow enough for everyone to cope with. The realistic one that results in the total destruction of global civilization, along with maybe 90% of the humans who make it up. And soon too, not on some far-flung “2100” date, the mere reading of which allows you to check out and turn the page because it isn’t  your problem.

Nope, more like 2035 or so, at best, give or take a few years.

So, your path must be to prepare for that, and to sever yourself from societal dependence and participation now, while you can do so cleanly and with your own plan and process. Get ready for a complete collapse and prepare to have the tools and mindset that allow a future generation of survivors shepherded through collapse by you, to rebuild a new world according to a new paradigm on a future Earth with much less carrying capacity than the one we have now.

Start building your community today, because you will need a resilient one. A solid group of truly collapse-aware and survival oriented people that can work with you to create something that can stand up to the force of the collapse that is coming, or at least give you the best shot possible. Let go of the hopium for a techno-wizardry solution, and back away from the stress and fear being caused by the idea of not having modern civilization all around you. The idea of a post-collapse world can seem scary for most, but that is usually a function of the unknown part of it. Once you know how to live apart from society and civilization, the idea of its loss will no longer make you afraid.

That is the only path forward I can reasonably see. An ecocivilization won’t come about because eight or nine billion people all suddenly got on the same page and put all their differences aside. And, if it happens at all, it won’t be some high-tech utopia out of a science fiction novel, with big green skyscrapers stretching as far as the eye can see… No, if it happens, it will be almost by accident, and will remain on the scale of small, isolated ecovillages living independent of each other across a globe that has been decimated by collapse. Survivors will have a chance to rebuild, and they will be able to choose their system anew from scratch.

That is the only way I see it happening, and is thus the way I can realistically direct others to prepare for.