It seems to me that we are stuck in a rut.
The demise of wildlife and wild places continues unabated and although conservation works, it’s still stuck in the “small movement” phase. The restoration of an area of forest, or the down-listing of a species on the IUCN Red List provides the occasional glimmer of hope and impression that we are making some inroads in the defence of our planet. But whilst we are winning the occasional battle, when we look at the state of biodiversity on the whole, it’s overwhelmingly obvious that we are losing the war.
The evidence is now clear that business-as-usual is no longer an option. Scientists are increasingly calling for an overhaul of our current systems. They say that what’s needed to level and reverse the current spasm of extinction is a transformative shift away from jobs, diets and economic models that harm the planet–and towards ones that try to heal it.
To reverse the degradation of habitats, the decimation of wildlife, and the unravelling of the very life support systems upon which we ultimately depend, this change must be two things. It must be wide-reaching. And it must be fast.
The problem with the fast and far-reaching change of systems is that it is understandably scary and unpopular to those people who benefit most from the current state of play.
But just as big a problem of overcoming the special interests with a hefty responsibility for driving the current crisis is a paucity of imagination. Calling for change is the easy part. But having done so, what does this change look like? How are new systems governed? What does the day-to-day life of somebody living in a sustainable rather than wastefully inefficient system actually look like? Is it depressingly dreary? Or maybe some kind of weird hippie paradise?
Needing vs designing change
The first thing to underscore is that calling for change is different from having an answer to what that change should actually look like. It should be obvious to anybody who wants to leave ideologies at the door and face the cold hard facts of staggering biodiversity loss and climate change that systems change, of some flavour, has to happen. The question, then, is what flavour?
At this point in the argument, one of two things tends to happen (this amongst those who are willing to consider the need for change in the first place, something many, typically evidence denier-types , remain unconvinced).
The first is that some people fall back on past systems of governance as the answer. Words like communism rear their ugly heads, or things begin sounding a little too utopian and unrealistic.
The other, more humble and sensible approach–seeing as no single person is going to have a map for navigated uncharted territory– is to take the “we’ll work it out as we go along” kind of attitude. Undoubtedly, this is partly what we need to do. But is there not a more systematic and evidence-based way of testing new approaches to live as sustainable societies?
When an entrepreneur or engineer wants to solve a particular problem they might come up with many solutions and strategies, test out different prototypes, and make gradual refinements until they have their final tried and tested product. There’s no room for dogmatism or close-mindedness in the process.
Similarly, would it not make sense to trial a number of different systems interventions so we can find out what works and what doesn’t? Keep and improve the good, and jettison the bad? It’s evidence-based conservation but operating at a societal level.
Creating a story
It might seem silly to think that we can imagine our way out of the sixth mass extinction, but this is exactly what I think we have to do. The plantery rut we find ourselves in as just as much caused by the innate desire to remain anchored to the current state of affairs as it is due to overfishing, mining or forest loss.
Changing how entire countries behave and do politics is bound to be slow. But what about trialling new approaches out in smaller, more nimble tribes? Properly green cities, documentaries that explore radically new ways of living, and community groups that challenge current orthodoxies.
Because if we can prove that life can be happy, fulfilling for people and good for the planet all at the same time, and we can make people actually excited about a different kind of future, then we can start to upscale this hodgepodge of small ideas into a new global story.
RELATED ARTICLES:
