So glad you invited Erin, one of the clearest 'columnists' on LinkedIn and beyond. Fareed Zakaria's new book "The Age of Revolutions" is important in this context too, and his main message is that we need to be alert to, and prepared for, the inevitable cultural backlash when social change happens quickly. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/fareed-zakaria-on-age-of-revolutions/ (this one only gets to the book at 04:18! There are also some great in-depth long interviews - this one with Max Boot is quite good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNpVv8-pH6A
Great interview, Rachel. One of the most important things Erin discussed is the nature of complex contagions. Why? Because in the search for tipping points to mobilize REAL climate action, the very nature of social networks is key.
As Erin pointed out, in reference to the work of Damon Centola, the research shows that social movements are not really like disease vectors. To lead to a social movement, 'wide bridges' (multiple strong connections) between strong networks are necessary for complex contagions to occur and grow exponentially. Given the urgency of the need to counter accelerating ecocide, finding ways to initiate a global mobilization for climate/ecological crisis reversal will likely require the application of these principles very soon.
We have historical examples of mobilization, but we do not yet have a clear methodology that can be deployed at scale for accelerating global climate mobilization. Erin's work with ReBiz certainly points in the right direction.
Rather than thousands of organizations struggling with their own problems and being unable to ever break through, everyone needs to realize unless money is out of USA politics nobody will reach their goals of a better world. I see our crony capitalism infecting the whole world while the media covers up for them. We need to connect, focus on the problem every group has (corruption) then, the great people of the world can progress and start to solve problems rather than ignore or fight hard for it to get nowhere. Love your work, so much appreciated! ☮️☝️❤️🌍
It's really inspiring to see a parent deeply involved in the movement. As a parent, I find it extremely difficult to do anything other than parenting, but Erin's idea of meeting virtually with a small group of eco-friends is a really good idea (and possible I suppose). How do you do it, Erin!? =)
You got to a really true and important place in this interview, particularly when you talked about the infiltration of the environmentalist movement by the CIA. As you know, the documents exist, but it's more than that. Environmentalism itself came out of the same Anticommunism that motivated the CIA. It was created by the ruling class, and so it was created to fail.
I enjoyed this conversation, agree with loads of it, and like the framing of information and tipping points.
However I came to comment on my frustration when asked about how to push towards change, Erin's suggestion seemed to be to hope for slow and incremental change via our existing political systems by creeping up the numbers of green politicians!? Might be (a tiny bit) more relevant in Oz, but in the UK with our FPTP system, lobbyng money, and elitist leadship class, this really doesn't cut it as a outline of action.
I think this points to a broader issue around inaction in this space. There is a huge number of people out there talking a lot of sense, but one suspects spend an awful amount of their time and energy talking to already like-minded people (or each other) on the internet. I get disheartened when I see yet another $1,000 online course to learn about what needs to change - even though I'm sure I broadly agree with the contents. Not specifically snarky towards Erin, as in and of itself I'm sure it's all good stuff. But cumulatively online courses and essays on substack and linkedin do not really feel like precursors to meaningful change.
My goodness. It seems that there is a strand of people who seem to believe that we can all live a beautiful life, using a bit less energy, if only we can stop the addiction with growth. I know it's hard to come to terms with reality but surely that is the best approach for how we deal with living in an unsustainable society that is causing so much damage?
How on earth can we have more free time in a sustainable future? For sustainability, we need to consume resources only at or, preferably, below the renewal rates for those resources and not do damage to the environment that it can't recover from. Degrowth, as imagined by people like Jason Hickel, can't give us a sustainable society. As far as I can tell, that is a fantasy. If you want to fashion a society that could last for, say, a couple of centuries, then maybe degrowth can get you there (though those centuries would eventually end). But an idyllic life where you have loads of free time with very little work and universal basic services is not sustainable. Stuff fails and deteriorates. Your affordable home needs repair. Recycling can never be close to 100% for all the materials a steady state economy would require, so you'd still be mining stuff and processing stuff, polluting the environment and removing habitat. For sustainability, we would almost all be involved in getting food onto the table, or the log. Every day, probably.
I'd love for Erin and Rachael to be right, I really would. But I've never seen anything to convince me that their visions, as espoused in this episode, are possible. I haven't even seen the practical side of a planned degrowth economy (how it works, day to day). Degrowth will happen but it is not likely to be planned.
So glad you invited Erin, one of the clearest 'columnists' on LinkedIn and beyond. Fareed Zakaria's new book "The Age of Revolutions" is important in this context too, and his main message is that we need to be alert to, and prepared for, the inevitable cultural backlash when social change happens quickly. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/fareed-zakaria-on-age-of-revolutions/ (this one only gets to the book at 04:18! There are also some great in-depth long interviews - this one with Max Boot is quite good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNpVv8-pH6A
Great interview, Rachel. One of the most important things Erin discussed is the nature of complex contagions. Why? Because in the search for tipping points to mobilize REAL climate action, the very nature of social networks is key.
As Erin pointed out, in reference to the work of Damon Centola, the research shows that social movements are not really like disease vectors. To lead to a social movement, 'wide bridges' (multiple strong connections) between strong networks are necessary for complex contagions to occur and grow exponentially. Given the urgency of the need to counter accelerating ecocide, finding ways to initiate a global mobilization for climate/ecological crisis reversal will likely require the application of these principles very soon.
We have historical examples of mobilization, but we do not yet have a clear methodology that can be deployed at scale for accelerating global climate mobilization. Erin's work with ReBiz certainly points in the right direction.
Both of you inspire!
Rather than thousands of organizations struggling with their own problems and being unable to ever break through, everyone needs to realize unless money is out of USA politics nobody will reach their goals of a better world. I see our crony capitalism infecting the whole world while the media covers up for them. We need to connect, focus on the problem every group has (corruption) then, the great people of the world can progress and start to solve problems rather than ignore or fight hard for it to get nowhere. Love your work, so much appreciated! ☮️☝️❤️🌍
I'm currently taking the reBiz course and it's honestly evolved me already.
The UK has quadrupled GDP since 1980 and halved emissions. So decoupling emissions from GDP is possible, we just need to get on with it!
It's really inspiring to see a parent deeply involved in the movement. As a parent, I find it extremely difficult to do anything other than parenting, but Erin's idea of meeting virtually with a small group of eco-friends is a really good idea (and possible I suppose). How do you do it, Erin!? =)
You got to a really true and important place in this interview, particularly when you talked about the infiltration of the environmentalist movement by the CIA. As you know, the documents exist, but it's more than that. Environmentalism itself came out of the same Anticommunism that motivated the CIA. It was created by the ruling class, and so it was created to fail.
I enjoyed this conversation, agree with loads of it, and like the framing of information and tipping points.
However I came to comment on my frustration when asked about how to push towards change, Erin's suggestion seemed to be to hope for slow and incremental change via our existing political systems by creeping up the numbers of green politicians!? Might be (a tiny bit) more relevant in Oz, but in the UK with our FPTP system, lobbyng money, and elitist leadship class, this really doesn't cut it as a outline of action.
I think this points to a broader issue around inaction in this space. There is a huge number of people out there talking a lot of sense, but one suspects spend an awful amount of their time and energy talking to already like-minded people (or each other) on the internet. I get disheartened when I see yet another $1,000 online course to learn about what needs to change - even though I'm sure I broadly agree with the contents. Not specifically snarky towards Erin, as in and of itself I'm sure it's all good stuff. But cumulatively online courses and essays on substack and linkedin do not really feel like precursors to meaningful change.
Thank you Rachel. Great to hear more from Erin. This article is also interesting to add to the content and insights available to bring about change - see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523003244
My goodness. It seems that there is a strand of people who seem to believe that we can all live a beautiful life, using a bit less energy, if only we can stop the addiction with growth. I know it's hard to come to terms with reality but surely that is the best approach for how we deal with living in an unsustainable society that is causing so much damage?
How on earth can we have more free time in a sustainable future? For sustainability, we need to consume resources only at or, preferably, below the renewal rates for those resources and not do damage to the environment that it can't recover from. Degrowth, as imagined by people like Jason Hickel, can't give us a sustainable society. As far as I can tell, that is a fantasy. If you want to fashion a society that could last for, say, a couple of centuries, then maybe degrowth can get you there (though those centuries would eventually end). But an idyllic life where you have loads of free time with very little work and universal basic services is not sustainable. Stuff fails and deteriorates. Your affordable home needs repair. Recycling can never be close to 100% for all the materials a steady state economy would require, so you'd still be mining stuff and processing stuff, polluting the environment and removing habitat. For sustainability, we would almost all be involved in getting food onto the table, or the log. Every day, probably.
I'd love for Erin and Rachael to be right, I really would. But I've never seen anything to convince me that their visions, as espoused in this episode, are possible. I haven't even seen the practical side of a planned degrowth economy (how it works, day to day). Degrowth will happen but it is not likely to be planned.