249
be re-interpreted. This idea brought about environmental economics that focuses on not competence and growth but human welfare and the
conservation of the bearing capacity of
ecosystems.
When the environmental basic problem was
discussed, it was mentioned that production and
consumption—while providing the society with
material goods—determine fundamentally the
processes of environmental damage and pollution (Sect. 2.7). Meadows et al. (1972) came to
the conclusion based on studying the scenarios of
their global models that the growth of production
has to be stopped in order to avoid global catastrophe in the twenty-first century. During arguments this concept was called zero growth
theory.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century
the above idea seems to be returning; however,
economic degrowth differs from zero growth in
both form and content (Latouche 2009, 2010;
Assadourian 2012). According to Latouche
(2009), degrowth means no decline as it could be
described as a healthy diet accepted voluntarily
to improve our personal prosperity. First of all,
the belief that the engine of development is
growth has to be abandoned. Secondly, diet is
necessary for overdeveloped, overconsuming
societies and not for those living in privation.
According to Jackson (2011) the fundamental
aim is prosperity without growth. Prosperity is
not the same as consumer lifestyle resulting in
the overuse of the natural capital of Earth.
Prospering society is such in which a better life
can be lived with less work and less consumption. Degrowth aims to realise a safer, more sustainable, healthier and fairer society. According
to the theory, this is possible if economies are set
on a track repairing the ecological systems of
Earth and strengthening community flexibility
and improving the subjective well-being of
people.
The above target can be supported but it is
worth shedding light on the changes in global
economy necessary for this. On the one hand,
around one third of global production has to be
cut off. This is necessary if we accept the estimation that currently 1.5 times the ecological capacity of the ecological systems of the planet is used
annually. (That is, we overload ecological systems.) On the other hand, the consumption of
around one third of humans (poor people) has to
be increased substantially in order to make their
life quality reasonable. To solve these two fundamental problems, both consumption habits and
production methods have to be changed.
Change should be started from the consumption side. According to Assadourian (2012), there
are promising signs. In 1978 around half of the
population under 16 in the U.S. had a drivers’
licence. This dropped to 31% by 2008, i.e., significantly fewer teenagers used cars in 2008 than
30 years earlier. This is explained by the fact that
most teenagers are in online contact with each
other thus cars are less demanded. Thousands of
similar changes would be required in developed
countries, primarily among wealthier people to
obtain
sensible
consumption
decrease.
Consumption could be reduced in almost all
fields of life without getting into privation. For
example, huge amount of food thrown away
(wasted) and the high ratio of overweight people
prove unhealthy overconsumption. A lot of
houses and flats are oversized, their electricity
and water consumption are excessive that could
be reduced with architecture techniques.
Decrease potential in clothing, using luxury
products and cosmetics and in the size and
method of journeys is also high. According to
Assadourian (2012), the above all are not enough
to encourage people to change their behaviour.
Governments and members of the business sector
have to take their role in changing consumer customs. Not persuasion or drastic measures would
be desired, but discussions on how certain luxury
products and convenience devices could be
replaced for improving the life standard of the
whole world.
Options and tasks facing humans have to be
talked about widely. The aim of giving up desires
has to be formulated clearly and people involved
have to know that their sacrifice will be paid off
in time (Maniates and Meyer 2010). Governments
could help preferred decisions with support, e.g.,
support for healthy products instead of mass
products of mega-companies; small and effective
flats are built with cheap rental possibilities, and
thus families will consume less energy and water
developing more sustainable consumer habits.
Companies make clearer to consumers which
6.7 Beyond SDGs: How to Develop the Global Society in the Future? Concepts Regarding the Future…
be re-interpreted. This idea brought about environmental economics that focuses on not competence and growth but human welfare and the
conservation of the bearing capacity of
ecosystems.
When the environmental basic problem was
discussed, it was mentioned that production and
consumption—while providing the society with
material goods—determine fundamentally the
processes of environmental damage and pollution (Sect. 2.7). Meadows et al. (1972) came to
the conclusion based on studying the scenarios of
their global models that the growth of production
has to be stopped in order to avoid global catastrophe in the twenty-first century. During arguments this concept was called zero growth
theory.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century
the above idea seems to be returning; however,
economic degrowth differs from zero growth in
both form and content (Latouche 2009, 2010;
Assadourian 2012). According to Latouche
(2009), degrowth means no decline as it could be
described as a healthy diet accepted voluntarily
to improve our personal prosperity. First of all,
the belief that the engine of development is
growth has to be abandoned. Secondly, diet is
necessary for overdeveloped, overconsuming
societies and not for those living in privation.
According to Jackson (2011) the fundamental
aim is prosperity without growth. Prosperity is
not the same as consumer lifestyle resulting in
the overuse of the natural capital of Earth.
Prospering society is such in which a better life
can be lived with less work and less consumption. Degrowth aims to realise a safer, more sustainable, healthier and fairer society. According
to the theory, this is possible if economies are set
on a track repairing the ecological systems of
Earth and strengthening community flexibility
and improving the subjective well-being of
people.
The above target can be supported but it is
worth shedding light on the changes in global
economy necessary for this. On the one hand,
around one third of global production has to be
cut off. This is necessary if we accept the estimation that currently 1.5 times the ecological capacity of the ecological systems of the planet is used
annually. (That is, we overload ecological systems.) On the other hand, the consumption of
around one third of humans (poor people) has to
be increased substantially in order to make their
life quality reasonable. To solve these two fundamental problems, both consumption habits and
production methods have to be changed.
Change should be started from the consumption side. According to Assadourian (2012), there
are promising signs. In 1978 around half of the
population under 16 in the U.S. had a drivers’
licence. This dropped to 31% by 2008, i.e., significantly fewer teenagers used cars in 2008 than
30 years earlier. This is explained by the fact that
most teenagers are in online contact with each
other thus cars are less demanded. Thousands of
similar changes would be required in developed
countries, primarily among wealthier people to
obtain
sensible
consumption
decrease.
Consumption could be reduced in almost all
fields of life without getting into privation. For
example, huge amount of food thrown away
(wasted) and the high ratio of overweight people
prove unhealthy overconsumption. A lot of
houses and flats are oversized, their electricity
and water consumption are excessive that could
be reduced with architecture techniques.
Decrease potential in clothing, using luxury
products and cosmetics and in the size and
method of journeys is also high. According to
Assadourian (2012), the above all are not enough
to encourage people to change their behaviour.
Governments and members of the business sector
have to take their role in changing consumer customs. Not persuasion or drastic measures would
be desired, but discussions on how certain luxury
products and convenience devices could be
replaced for improving the life standard of the
whole world.
Options and tasks facing humans have to be
talked about widely. The aim of giving up desires
has to be formulated clearly and people involved
have to know that their sacrifice will be paid off
in time (Maniates and Meyer 2010). Governments
could help preferred decisions with support, e.g.,
support for healthy products instead of mass
products of mega-companies; small and effective
flats are built with cheap rental possibilities, and
thus families will consume less energy and water
developing more sustainable consumer habits.
Companies make clearer to consumers which
6.7 Beyond SDGs: How to Develop the Global Society in the Future? Concepts Regarding the Future…