Better ideas won't save our habitat

Where did we get the idea that humanity can escape collapse of its habitat simply by spreading better ideas?

Whether people put their suggestions for a better life in a well-researched book with hundreds of footnotes or in a 140 character tweet, they likely to affect only the sphere of ideas.

Yes, they can result in a fruitful discussion, a talk show appearance, the idea can go viral and attract millions. But even when large groups of people might add your idea to the collection of ideas they hold dear, at least for a while, the likelihood of the required social change is nil.

One reason is that adopting an idea to a sufficient degree to play around with it and to test it your social environment costs very little, except when you would risk excommunication from groups that you depend on. Yes, changing your opinion on topics that groups use to define their borders can get you severely punished, especially in circles that describe themselves as tolerant, after America reran its 1920s culture wars on YouTube. But automated matching allows virtually any idea to find groups where transmission is risk free, either because everyone already applauds something similar or applauds its categorical rejection.

Ideas can thus reach millions without changing a single person’s mind.

Even extremely attractive ideas tend to stay in the layer of culture where streams of language affect symbolically expressed beliefs. They don’t produce any effect other than parroting. Humans are famous for their capacity to harbour and spread conflicting ideas, as is the tendency to act contrary to strongly voiced principles. We need that ability, as people tend to break without a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.

Spreading ideas is unlikely to get people to drop old beliefs, significantly change their behaviour, or change the behaviour of groups they are part of. Let alone the ecological footprint of the systems that keep them warm and fed. Emissions and resource use since 1972 have only gone up.

But wait! you say. Haven’t any rapid and profound social changes occurred in history? Surely the spread of ideas played a huge role in that?

Of course. The reformation, the Magna Carta, the French revolution, the abolition of slavery, the introduction of universal suffrage, the 40 hour work week, state pensions, paid sick leave, universal health insurance (in selected countries. Terms and conditions apply. Contact your local legislator for more information) were brought about by movements thick with slogans, manifests and declarations.

But in those movements, ideas were just just one of the ingredients that bound people together.

Others were personal trust and practical solidarity.

Trust can’t be established by reading essays or seeing interviews. It needs a direct, two way personal connection. You need to know that you’ve been seen. It’s also a prerequisite for people to actually change their mind: you need to know that the other is telling something to you, and that the group bearing those ideas won’t leave you in the cold night in the tundra, freezing, starving and ready to be eaten by a sable tooth tiger if your old tribe excommunicates you for adopting them.

Solidarity is practical: in a strike, you need to know that you won’t starve, in an uprising, you need to be willing to take a bullet for one another, know that your wounds will be treated and that someone will take care of your loved ones when you die.

However, speech, trust and solidarity weren’t the only things that successful movements produced. Movements aren't just about convincing others to join.

The noblemen didn’t sign up for any democratization movements. The pope didn’t become protestant. Employers didn’t join the unions or the strikes. The political parties representing the upper middle class didn’t vote for the welfare state. But their power diminished to a point where the movement’s demands could be met by large parts of society and their social reforms could be implemented.

Successful movements wrestled power from those who actively resisted change. They created new social spaces for people to exist by actively reducing the space managed by those in power.

Sometimes only initially against their will, as they later saw the merits of the idea, sometimes the threat of total removal from power was needed, and sometimes those who had power never saw any need to make room but were simply forced to.

And this seems a blind spot for so many activists, especially environmental activists. People seem to think it’s enough to prove, illustrate, demonstrate the quality and advantages of their ideas. How everything could work so much better for everyone if a modest change was implemented. But what they forget is that the fact that such obvious changes never were implemented earlier is a strong indication of resistance existing somewhere.

Simply put, improving things for all isn’t the criteria to meet. It might surprise you, but many systems and many people in power do not care about “everyone”. Or about any other than themselves. Or even enough about themselves in the long run.

I’ve noticed I lost all interest in suggestions for social or environmental improvements that only justify themselves by being better for everyone. That is not enough to convince those with a vested interest in the status quo.

So the first question I have these days is: does your idea include a plan how to wrestle room for it from those in power?

From fossil fuel industries with sufficient clout to get governments to wage war in far away deserts? From the sex appeal of high rise glass and steel and private jets? From large corporations we completely depend on for jobs and infrastructure? Of finance, so self interested but so big it’s to be saved at any cost? From those defending their idea of a modern society at the expense of any form of social innovation except more surveillance and control? From systems that hold us hostage because they control the means of survival?

It’s not an easy task.

A good movement therefore needs two things other than the cause itself. First, concrete demands. Second, a credible threat to those in power. From the members of the movement, external groups or other forces of nature.

When democracy came to Europe, Kings were afraid that if they didn’t share power, they’d be beheaded. Which had happened elsewhere. Those opposing social reforms in Sweden were afraid that if they didn’t comply with the demands of the social democrats, the much more radical communists would have their revolution. Which had happened elsewhere. Employers were afraid that strikers could keep at it for longer than the company would survive. Which had happened elsewhere.

Reducing the grip of those in power doesn’t necessarily require direct action against them, it sometimes involves reducing your own dependency, because a lot of power is wielded through that. It’s easier to renegotiate a social contract if you don’t lose your home immediately after leaving the table.

So yes, let’s talk about degrowth, about rewilding, about an emergency landing of capitalism.

But also build high trust groups, foster practical solidarity, write down demands, plan for the case when they are not met, be prepared for some action, and keep at it.

The biggest problem isn’t that your idea isn’t perfect. The biggest problem is reducing the power of those who like the status quo.

And who knows, that might even be us.

~

~

:wq