So what could become the major goal instead? Summarizing twenty-first century
research about human needs and how to align them with nature’s qualities brings us
very close to the differentiated framework of sufficiency of Sachs. He suggested it
as early as the 1990s, and I did not anticipate this resemblance when I began to
write the book.
For Sachs, sufficiency goes far beyond simply having less stuff. It tackles several
unsustainable trends of the current development paradigm at once. In the framework he differentiates four ‘E’s’ in German (Entschleunigung, Entflechtung,
Entrümpelung, and Entkommerzialisierung), which I would translate as four ‘D’s’:
Deceleration, Deglobalization, Decluttering, and Decommodification. In a book on
sufficiency policies another translator has called them the “four Lessens” because
these concepts “express the idea that we need to lessen our speed, our distance, the
encumbrance of our acquired possessions, and the role of commerce and the market
in our lives” (Schneidewind/Zahrnt 2014: 30).
I like the four D’s and summarize the key stance behind them by drawing on
terms that were introduced and discussed in this chapter:
• Deceleration—endless efficiency and increasing speed in all areas of production
and consumption reduce experienced utility and increase vulnerability of production chains;
• Deglobalization—price-driven fragmentation of production chains and
transnational corporate units across the globe boosts profits but widely externalizes ecological costs and avoids fair taxation;
• Decluttering—running after ever more stuff in competition with others reduces
the ability to really connect and enjoy each one of our items and also overstretches the Earth’s carrying capacity;
• Decommercialization—applying mental models of commodities and financial
benefits to all relationships leads to less quality of life, less concern for others or
the environment, and keeps governance blind to the physical and psychological
realities behind the numbers.
We can take more care of what we have, distribute it more sensibly and thoroughly, and innovate our production and consumption systems so they bring us into
a safe and just operating space. There clearly is enough to go round. Spending
patterns show that there is room for the reorientation of already existing wealth
without ruining lives. We do not need ever more output. We need different business
models, market patterns, money systems and the courage to let go of the exhausting
narrative that we are insatiable egoists trapped in a constant competitive race over
accumulation for accumulation’s sake and a fear of falling behind.
The good news is that the wider context of what could shape into a Second
Enlightenment movement holds this potential:
• Emphasis lies on reflexivity that takes circumstances into account when
undertaking intellectual and empirical investigations.
• Social sciences and the role of spirituality return to the realms of understanding
and explaining development patterns of the world.
116
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …
research about human needs and how to align them with nature’s qualities brings us
very close to the differentiated framework of sufficiency of Sachs. He suggested it
as early as the 1990s, and I did not anticipate this resemblance when I began to
write the book.
For Sachs, sufficiency goes far beyond simply having less stuff. It tackles several
unsustainable trends of the current development paradigm at once. In the framework he differentiates four ‘E’s’ in German (Entschleunigung, Entflechtung,
Entrümpelung, and Entkommerzialisierung), which I would translate as four ‘D’s’:
Deceleration, Deglobalization, Decluttering, and Decommodification. In a book on
sufficiency policies another translator has called them the “four Lessens” because
these concepts “express the idea that we need to lessen our speed, our distance, the
encumbrance of our acquired possessions, and the role of commerce and the market
in our lives” (Schneidewind/Zahrnt 2014: 30).
I like the four D’s and summarize the key stance behind them by drawing on
terms that were introduced and discussed in this chapter:
• Deceleration—endless efficiency and increasing speed in all areas of production
and consumption reduce experienced utility and increase vulnerability of production chains;
• Deglobalization—price-driven fragmentation of production chains and
transnational corporate units across the globe boosts profits but widely externalizes ecological costs and avoids fair taxation;
• Decluttering—running after ever more stuff in competition with others reduces
the ability to really connect and enjoy each one of our items and also overstretches the Earth’s carrying capacity;
• Decommercialization—applying mental models of commodities and financial
benefits to all relationships leads to less quality of life, less concern for others or
the environment, and keeps governance blind to the physical and psychological
realities behind the numbers.
We can take more care of what we have, distribute it more sensibly and thoroughly, and innovate our production and consumption systems so they bring us into
a safe and just operating space. There clearly is enough to go round. Spending
patterns show that there is room for the reorientation of already existing wealth
without ruining lives. We do not need ever more output. We need different business
models, market patterns, money systems and the courage to let go of the exhausting
narrative that we are insatiable egoists trapped in a constant competitive race over
accumulation for accumulation’s sake and a fear of falling behind.
The good news is that the wider context of what could shape into a Second
Enlightenment movement holds this potential:
• Emphasis lies on reflexivity that takes circumstances into account when
undertaking intellectual and empirical investigations.
• Social sciences and the role of spirituality return to the realms of understanding
and explaining development patterns of the world.
116
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …