Before the Covid19 pandemic wrought havoc in all parts of the world, we were going at a rate. The popular notion that happiness or human well-being is directly associated with more and more one possess or is able to consume was driving the socioeconomic growth. The linear economy depended upon an annual numerical growth with scant regard to environmental concerns. Most environmental concerns and reports were shelved or back paddled to ensure the numbers kept rolling. The Global Footprint online indicator as of 11th of April 2020, indicated that the resource draw as per current consumption rates are as disproportionate as much as 1.75 times of the earth. Since the current pandemic and the global shutdown or lock-down, various reports surfaced about the skies clearing, smogs receding, wildlife flourishing, cleaner and clearer water even in Venice to mention a few. As we took an extended holiday the planet started healing. We are eager to return to normalcy again. Can that normalcy be a new paradigm? An impactful new environmental paradigm that would enable us to avert disasters as the one we had to endure? As a community of people on the lookout for new knowledge that practitioners draw upon, that societies draw upon, can we escalate the sustainable development agenda as the 'reset' button is being pressed?
Yes, we want to return to the same life, but with changed brains and thoughts...
We all want to go back to normalcy but of course some lifestyles and behavior will have to be modified. In addition, new mindsets have to change in relation to interacting with our environment. This is keeping in mind the virus is not gone. We are only learning how to live with it.
We have proven that working from home is technically possible, environmentally friendly, and cost-saving too. The work efficiency needs to be measured and the learnings should help identify a new, improved dynamic working model to support the economy, society, and the environment. Similar approaches to be taken in the transportation and retail industries too.
First, I have to disagree with your premise. I don't think that individuals, nor groups and societies, were as homogeneously engaged in the unending consumerism as you outlined. Yes, the global, capitalist oligarchy wanted everyone to think and act that way and was promoting the FALSE notion that everyone already did. Yes, that oligarchy was carrying the day, but I think there were numerous contrary voices and movements.
Second, I don't think that many people have even begun to wrap their minds around the current situation, even so far as anyone can understand it. But the data that is available is so sparse, incomplete, and non-experimentally selective in how it is collected so as to be nearly useless. So far, this pandemic has been much, much less lethal than the "Spanish Flu" of 1918. Is that because of the efforts of governments around the world? Or is it because the disease is inherently less lethal, less contagious, or both? I don't think anyone has a data set that can answer such questions with any confidence. Likewise, we have no idea whether a vaccine is even feasible. If it is, what will be its efficacy and performance? Note that with Influenza vaccines we are not very effective at controlling the annual spread of Influenza. Another example is that we have little understanding (but nearly limitless speculation) regarding why one person in their 80s with preexisting health problems will contract the COVID-19 and be asymptomatic while another relatively healthy person in their 80s will die in less than a day. What would the death toll ultimately be if we were to do nothing? What would the death toll ultimately be if we were to globally try to do for years what South Korea did for the first two months? What would the environmental consequences be? What would the social consequences be? Lots of wild speculation with little real data.
Third, the current "normal" is no more sustainable than the old "normal." The consumption has been redirected to different items (like disposable medical masks or less disposable ventilators) but the consumption continues in varying ways in the developed world. Likewise, it is not sustainable in that people are not living in ways that they can, or will, endure for long periods. Another example is the way that education is suffering. I could go on and on.
Fourth, endless population growth is inherently unsustainable. There are two key factors that control population growth. The first is birth. Societies can control births. The Chinese showed how this can be done through authoritarian governmental action. Western Europe, and to a lesser degree the US, have shown how this can be accomplished through the selfish, consumer driven society that you deride in your question. Western Europe and the US would have zero, or negative, population growth in the absence of immigration from less developed parts of the world. Japan does have negative population growth (and Russia briefly did). The second is death. The population explosion in the past 200 years has been largely driven by reducing deaths. If sustainability is really the objective, then perhaps pandemics are natures answer to sustainability. I say that while not knowing how COVID-19 is going to effect me when I contract it, or how it will effect my wife, adult children, or grandchildren. But I say it with the conviction that there is some significant probability that I will ultimately contract COVID-19 because it may not be stoppable by a vaccine and societies cannot sustain the current measures that we are using to slow its spread.
In summation, I didn't support the rampant growth, spread of consumerism and, so-called, "globalization" long before the pandemic. However, I don't think that the current pandemic has moved many, or perhaps any, societies toward a more sustainable "normal;" even if we are consuming less fossil fuels at the present time. I don't see the silver lining that your question seems to be hoping for from the current pandemic. The "shock" to the system may represent an opportunity for change, but you and many others will need to be very creative to chart a path toward a truly sustainable new normal. A truly sustainable path had not yet been imagined prior to the pandemic, just slightly slower paths to the same dismal destination. I hope a sustainable path can be imagined and brought to pass.
I agree with professor Matthew Mabey . The paper: Axioms and actions for preventing disasters, is an intresting work. I recommend it to those interested in this discussion. This paper is attached to this message.
That wasn't normal that was bad we are getting to normal now, a normal society with PEOPLE, well being and dignity
The Normalcy we used to have will not be there and it is not by choice that we can have it back anytime soon. For the emerging markets, this global economic reset basically will hasten the adoption of digital economy that perhaps will drive towards higher productivity and efficiency in economic turns,. Policy makers can take advantage of this force reset to put in place policies for sustainability intensification towards resilience build up (including preventive healthcare) and self sufficiency in the form of more circular economies
20 May MMXX
The "reset" you talk about might also lead to a South American style inflation.
ASJ
Matthew Mabey I agree with Prof. Mabey completely. The growth apology and the consumeristic patological paradigm were far back in time recgonized as problematic. And unfortunately it doesn't really look like we're understanding this as every government is mainly focusing on limiting GDPs disruptions, no matter what. I am hopeless and worst will come!
To Giacomo Buzzao, and anyone else that ventures into this thread: Don't be hopeless! Note that my somewhat gloomy post above ended with a statement of hope. While global, regional, national, and local socio-policito-economic systems have great influence on our lives, there is joy and individual growth to be had in much of the world. I have seen children laugh and smile with deeper joy in what most would call poverty than is usually the case in affluence. Individually, we have small spheres of influence, but we can be forces for good and progress within those spheres. Collectively, that influence can be greater, if still limited. My point is that in life we face continual challenges, great and small. We must constantly face them, but I think it is most effective to face them with knowledge, understanding, and pragmatism. The disruption of the pandemic may create an opportunity, but exploiting such opportunities takes hard, diligent work. The same forces that created the complex world circumstances before this pandemic are still at work during the pandemic. Those forces will continue to be at work when the pandemic fades into the background (whatever form that may take).
- Badges
- Science topic