On the market: John Lampen’s Thought for the Week

‘Will we only change when catastrophe forces us?’

As a child I often saw fields where the stubble was burnt off after the harvest, to enrich the soil. When I asked a farmer why this stopped, he said, ‘It was a good practice for the son, but bad for the grandson.’ I recalled this as I listened to the contenders in the recent election promising economic growth. 

I am aware of the need for more money to halt the decay in hospitals, schools, prisons and public services; and I can see that this should come from a healthier economy, rather than from taxes or borrowing. But I am deeply worried that I didn’t hear any voices questioning the consensus that a good quality of life requires continuing economic growth. Even the Green Party described how growth should be managed rather than challenging the basic assumption.

But how long do we think this can continue? We need to reverse the idea that our welfare depends on making more, and taking more, from the earth. Are politicians and economists incapable of devising an alternative economy that keeps us in balance with nature, and gradually allows the earth to heal? What are we leaving for ‘the grandson’?

Is it not wishful thinking to hope that we can develop technologies that give growth without doing damage? For example, the move to electric cars may be necessary, but this requires manufacturing on a huge scale, with the attendant pollution and the mining of rare metals that has already caused terrible wars. Electric car use also entails the maintenance and expansion of our road system, another cause of environmental degradation. 

The science which describes the dangers of growth is largely accepted, but our governments – and all of us – pay it lip service without acting on its predictions. Instead, vested interests exercise a power out of all proportion to everyone’s need for a safe and sustainable future. Targets are set, but then timetables are delayed, and new fossil fuel extraction is permitted because ‘it is needed in the meantime’. Will we only change when catastrophe forces us? 

Yes, surrendering the model of growth will be enormously difficult, needing a consensus, effort and sacrifice greater than anything since the second world war. And I realise we are not yet ready for that. I see no political will to take a radical look at alternative economies and make the difficult choices now. But I wish that some leaders would grasp the necessity of a different financial structure, and begin the detailed thinking. 

Major political changes can start at the grassroots; the fall of communism showed how quickly and effectively an existing system can be overturned. I wonder if environmental groups fail to carry the public with them because their message is too often one of fear, not hope. Our leaders are not greatly trusted at the moment, but they are best placed to create a blueprint for change – a new vision. If they were to challenge us instead of placating us, then groups in civil society, including the Society of Friends, could critique their proposals and add their own. ‘Without a vision’, says the Book of Proverbs, ‘the people perish’.

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment