#14 The best of times (when you're rich and healthy), but for how long?

At times, I contemplate that from my privileged position, holding a comfortable job in a prosperous country (and incidentally, this prosperity in our nation is rooted in a colonial past and sustained by natural gas exploitation over recent decades—why else would one become so affluent dwelling in a marshy region?), it's perhaps the best era to be alive.

The Netherlands is experiencing warmer temperatures on average than before. Unlike many of my fellow Dutch citizens, I don't particularly enjoy ice skating in the winter, so the milder weather is more comfortable for me (apart from the rain). Additionally, the disappearance of many bothersome insects (such as those found on the mirror of cars or mosquitoes at night) is a welcome change. However, despite our ability to live as we please and not be restricted from refraining from clearly damaging behaviour, it's difficult to deny that we currently enjoy favourable conditions. And we all know that this, ultimately, poses a threat to humanity. It's a comfortable yet concerning situation—a kind of comfortable polycrisis . And because it's so comfy, who would want to change it?

That is where we are. And that is why the debate about radical change and transformations gets more intense. For instance, I see a lot of degrowth debunking , as there was already much green growth debunking (there is much more on this).

Debunking both ideas, or almost any radical idea about the future, is relatively straightforward. They're founded on scattered empirical observations and experiments within our current non-sustainable economic framework and projected into the future. Both demand substantial human feats: creating the necessary technologies to avert disaster or fostering mindset shifts that enable contentment with less. Essentially, they're both utopian.

So, uncertainty is significant for both. Where should we place our bets, then?

For those with a lot to lose, it is tempting to bet on innovation. The reason has nothing to do with the likelihood of success. The choice is based on the fact that if you bet on innovation, you don’t have to change anything now.

However, a new article this week clearly shows that it is unlikely that we will achieve decoupling.

My conclusion: scientifically, the likelihood of achieving an economy that operates within planetary boundaries is exceedingly slim. Furthermore, I increasingly recognise that there are more crucial narratives than this. The paramount tale is to envision that future anew. Let's not lose ourselves in the struggle; instead, unite to reimagine societal transformations . Let's embark on this journey before the best of times turns into the worst of times.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

Source: Charles Dickens (1859), Tale of two Cities

I decided to post the rest of my weekly analysis only on substack (where you can also find an explanation of the image below).

It does not require that you subscribe to it, but it is easier to read than on LinkedIn.

In the news

• Why don’t humans respond to extinction-level risks? Human civilization faces so many critical extinction-level threats, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, nuclear war, pollution, and AI risks.The reasoning in the article (which I agree mainly with): - People don't oversee the complexity of our civilisation and, if they do, cannot act individually. - Systemic issues like climate change require large-scale changes in infrastructure and industry beyond what individual actions can achieve. - The current economic system is driven by profit maximisation. It incentivizes behaviours contributing to risks (e.g. if pollution is free if pumping up fossil fuels is highly profitable) while discouraging mitigation efforts (because they are a cost). - Despite the urgency of these threats, people tend to perceive them as distant or someone else's problem, hindering collective action. - Technology is often seen as a solution. Still, it's also recognized as a significant contributor to many risks. - Despite human resilience, survival is uncertain in the face of catastrophic events.
• Despite the evident adverse effects, many responsible investors continue to pour funds into fast fashion. The Financial Times questions this phenomenon, pointing out the contradiction in supporting companies driving low-quality clothing consumption
• Oil and gas companies are way off-track from Paris Agreement goals : Climate alignment assessments reveal oil & gas company transition risk examines the 25 largest listed oil and gas companies and evaluates the extent to which they are aligned with Paris-climate goals.

That’s all for this week.

Take care,

Hans