In Search of Ecocivilisation

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13505
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

In Search of Ecocivilisation

Post by UndercoverElephant »

I have set up a new facebook group (which already has close to 100 members and rising fast). The goal is debate about the westernisation of the concept of Ecocivilisation.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/931427295715081

Here is the introductory post:
The definition of the term “ecocivilisation” is likely to be contested, but for the purposes of this post I will define it thus: Ecocivilisation (Ecological Civilisation)is any form of human civilisation which has established a stable long-term balance with the ecosystem in which it is embedded and upon which it depends, and is therefore sustainable indefinitely. The final stage or state of the evolution of human social organisation.

The concept of ecocivilisation is currently in only fringe use in western politics and philosophy. It was first used by academics in the Soviet Union in 1984, then in China from 1987. In 2012 the Chinese government made ecocivilisation one of its five national development goals. In China the concept is already closely bound to policy and governance, and rooted in the ancient philosophical-religious tradition of Taoism. The Chinese do, obviously, acknowledge the existence of different forms of society, and they define ecocivilisation as the final state “for a given society”. Of particular relevance here is that China's political system is authoritarian: it is possible for the leadership to commit the nation to ecocivilisation without having to worry about winning the next election. This difference is crucial, because democracy is one of the hallmarks of Western civilisation, and is very likely to pose multiple show-stopping problems for a Western version of ecocivilisation. So will the lack of a religious system suitable for the job – Christianity, at least in its current form, is clearly inadequate for all sorts of reasons.

Why is this concept important?

Firstly because it is relevant regardless of your views about the collapse of civilisation as we know it. Only if you are resigned to near term human extinction does it become irrelevant, and there's no reason for anybody to think that. We are the most adaptible creature ever to have walked the Earth and there is a limit to how much damage we can do to the climate. Even a worst-case scenario (which is sadly quite likely to be what actually happens) wouldn't be enough to render the entire surface of the Earth so inhospitable that humans won't figure out how to survive (albeit in much smaller numbers). We aren't returning to the Stone Age either, because....books. Modern knowledge is just too powerful and useful, and there's just too many books in circulation, for all of that to get lost. If you accept all that then humans are going to be around for a very long time, and no species can remain out of balance with its ecosystem forever. Evolution won't let that happen. If we look at this way then ecocivilisation is not some impossible aspiration but our destiny. The questions we should then be asking is not whether we will get there in the end but what “there” actually looks like, how long it takes to get there, and what has to happen on the way.

I believe Western countries need to follow China's example and commit to creating an ecocivilisation as an official goal. That leaves a great many questions. How can we Westernise the concept of ecocivilisation? Can a reformed sort of democracy support ecocivilisation? Can any parts of capitalism support ecocivilisation? Could anything replace capitalism? Does anything else have to change? Do we need a religious revolution? A scientific revolution? How could we possibly get from here to there? Does the existing system have to collapse before a new one can be constructed?
The purpose of this facebook group is to explore these questions and others like them. I want it to be primarily a place for respectful, intelligent, open debate. I want it to be a place of mutual learning about real problems and real solutions. I would like there to be a maximum amount of free speech, but only if the speech is justified in terms of the arguments themselves. In other words it must be thoughtful and as rational as possible, not emotional baiting or provocative or sarcastic smilies instead of proper answers.

Please help me to turn this place into what it needs to be. I am very open to suggestions.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
Post Reply