Share

cover art for 475: We Can Dance Around Environmental Problems All We Want. We Eventually Reach Overpopulation and Overconsumption

This Sustainable Life

475: We Can Dance Around Environmental Problems All We Want. We Eventually Reach Overpopulation and Overconsumption

Ep. 475

Have you ever tasted an heirloom tomato so delicious it was almost a religious experience? I used to think people who complained about supermarket tomatoes sounded full of themselves. How different can they taste?

Then I tasted heirloom tomatoes with so much flavor, I couldn’t believe my taste buds. The next time I ate a mainstream tomato it felt like eating wet cotton.

Do you know what they used to call heirloom tomatoes?

They used to call heirloom tomatoes tomatoes. Our post-industrial values of growth, efficiency, externalizing costs, comfort, convenience, and extraction turned something divine into something available year-round at an affordable price but a fall from grace to say the least. In the way that my rare sips of scotch today give me more appreciation of spirits than the larger quantities I drank of beer in college despite drinking less alcohol, my net appreciation of tomatoes is greater now, despite spending less overall on them and only eating them in season.

I mention this contrast for context.

Every day we read headlines about environmental problems. Deforestation, sea level rise, plastic in our bloodstreams, forever chemicals crossing the placenta, lead lowering our IQs.

We can dance around environmental problems all we want. We eventually reach overpopulation and overconsumption.

Everyone thinks reducing population means killing people and reducing consumption means reverting to the stone age. More like switching from binge drinking cheap beer or eating industrial tomatoes to appreciating scotch or experiencing preindustrial tomatoes.

Mainstream views, and, no offense but likely yours, are wrong on alternatives to both. They associate reducing overpopulation with the One Child Policy and eugenics, and the authoritarian, inhumane, and inhuman practices they led to including forced sterilization, forced abortions, and more. They associate reducing overconsumption with deprivation and sacrifice. We associate buying things with happiness and quality of life, so less must mean unhappiness and lower quality of life. If we don’t grow the GDP, people will lose jobs, we won’t be able to maintain our infrastructure, hospitals will close, mothers will die in childbirth, and 35 will be old age. Do you want to return to the stone age, Josh? Is that what you want?

But the alternative to overpopulation is lowering the birth rate, which many nations have done through purely voluntary, non-coercive means, mainly education, access to contraception, and the freedom to choose their family size themselves—the opposite of the One Child Policy or eugenics. These policies throughout the world brought health, longevity, stability, prosperity though voluntary means—the opposite of mainstream expectations. Frankly I thought that way too and couldn't talk about it until I learned of it happening all over the world. Until then, I thought if the cure is worse than the disease, I’ll take the disease. The last place I want the government is in the bedroom. As it turns out, globally, the government is in the bedroom, promoting larger families based on disproved economic myths, trying to coerce people into larger families. Over hundreds of thousands of years, humans have kept our population at replacement. The past few centuries since stumbling onto fossil fuels are the aberration that we’ve born into, erroneously seeing as normal. For the two to three hundred thousand years of human existence before agriculture, our ancestors lived longer, healthier lives than the past ten thousand years until living memory. And now we’re making ourselves sicker and dying earlier than our parents.

People associate consumption with quality of life. More stuff can improve life if you’re on the cusp. People you know imagine themselves cousins with such people eking out a living, as if they are like cousins or siblings. On the contrary, you and people you know are likely benefiting from their suffering and contributing to it. They are if they're using single-use plastic, flying, heating their homes too much in winter and cooling them too much in the summer. The alternative is joy etc. You and I aren’t on the margin. We have so much stuff, advertisers spend billions to make as want more because it doesn’t improve our lives.

Since Earth's carrying capacity without fossil fuels is, as best I can tell, about two billion, leveling off our population doesn’t move us away from the population collapsing. The solution is to copy what many people around the world have done—to choose to reduce birth rate globally to well below replacement and to consume less. If you heard classism, nationalism, sexism, or racism in anything I’ve said, you stuck it in yourself. Such preconceived notions aren’t helping anyone.

Reducing consumption and number of children in rich nations are easier physically, but people here are so entitled and spoiled that in our minds we think it's harder. We’ve lost the sense that technology has made us more dependent on it and less resilient. So we need to restore our culture—that is, role models, beliefs, images, stories—to historical ones including stewardship and Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. Nobody wants to be displaced from their land or have their air, land, and water poisoned.

I've reduced my consumption and waste from average American by over ninety percent, all improving my quality life. I have no kids, though I could still have one and be below replacement level. I doubt I'll have one because I couldn't look my child in the eye knowing what world is in store for him or her. Yes, if you’re a parent, I’m improving your kids’ future, possibly more than you. Yeah, I said it.

If you're like most people, facts, figures, logic, and instruction, however simple and sensical, won't influence your behavior. You'll change when about five people in your life do. So here are my changes:

  • I haven’t flown since 2016 by choice
  • I take two years to fill a load of trash
  • I’ve picked up litter daily since 2017
  • My monthly electric charges have been below $1.95 this year
  • I buy mostly local produce year-round, including winter. The major exception being dried beans, which I buy from bulk and are my main staple.
  • Last ate meat in 1990, vegan a big chunk of that time
  • I lead global leaders to change so I’m not acting alone, but working to change systems and culture

Now you know one person who lived like the average American, thought individual action wouldn’t make a difference, but voluntarily chose to live more simply and loved the results so much I’ll never return and only wish I’d acted sooner. Like you, I felt I needed to fly to make a living. My family is scattered around the world. Nothing about the change for me was any easier than for you, no matter how unique you consider yourself. So knowing my change, you're about twenty percent of the way to changing. Look for others and you'll change sooner. The number one predictor of someone installing solar on their homes is how many neighbors did already. Same with habits in eating, drinking, smoking, voting, and many other areas.

What about efficiency and decoupling? Aren't we reducing consumption and waste while increasing GDP? This is a quantitative case. Before doing the numbers, you could imagine it going either way. After doing the numbers, decoupling is a myth. Actually, more a scam, like recycling plastic and carbon offsets. We want to believe so we can cling to our old ways, but once you see the effects are the oppositive of your fantasies, it becomes overwhelmingly clear. If you make a polluting system more efficient, you pollute more efficiently.

We have been sold scam after scam by polluters. I doubt they mean harm, any more than an individual does when ordering takeout or flying. Systems often work differently than we expect, so they sound like they could work. The numbers matter. They don’t. Here are some of the scams:

  • The hydrogen economy
  • Future generations will solve what we messed up
  • Recycling
  • The closed loop economy
  • How we'll feed 10 billion people by 2050
  • Net zero
  • Carbon neutral
  • Electrify everything
  • Mars
  • Fission
  • Fusion
  • Decoupling
  • Demographic transitions
  • Carbon offsets
  • Geoengineering

They all sound like they’ll work. Asbestos worked. So did leaded gasoline and marketing cigarettes to children. Then we learned they killed people and we stopped them.

You probably suspected deep inside that carbon offsets were too good to be true. When you look at the systemic effects, they increase the problem. Same with fusion and all the others I listed. I have a PhD in physics, an MBA, and I’ve studied this stuff. Nobody wishes it worked more than I. I expected it would work as much as anyone. But they all accelerate the problems. To clarify: several of these actions could work as tactics within a strategy of lowering birth rate and consumption, but not as strategies themselves.

In practice, as a culture we do the opposite of the first term in "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," while taking false refuge in the third, accelerating Earth's degradation while feeling good about ourselves. We live the pattern in most of the points above, increasing our damage while telling ourselves the scam trend is helping. Don’t believe me? Look at the numbers. Contact me for sources. The indicators of our lowering Earth's ability to sustain life are all increasing, especially CO2, plastic, deforestation, extinctions, and forever chemicals like PFOA.

For generations we’ve known we were impacting too much and said later generations will fix it while buying into the latest scam trend to keep from the obvious. The tragedy is that the scams weren’t improving their quality of life. Research shows hunters and gatherers have higher qualities of life than most industrialized people outside the elite few percent.

They all promote thinking “not me, not now, someone else, some other time.” They all fail to change our pollution. When you hear them, expect them to lead you to think palliative thoughts: “Despite all the problems, you aren’t responsible, your pollution doesn’t count, keep buying, keep consuming, keep flying. Don’t change.” These scams accelerate our lowering Earth’s ability to sustain life. Only two things work: fewer kids, less consumption and its resulting less production.

If you want to pollute less, you have to change the system. Changing parts of a system won't do it. You need to change the system's values and goals from material growth to enjoying what you have and personal growth, from externalizing costs to taking responsibility for affecting others, from extraction to humility toward nature and honoring it, from comfort and convenience to the satisfaction of a job well done, and from efficiency to resilience. These new values aren’t new. They’re more fundamental for most of us but lost amid the advertising-driven craving.

Leaders change cultures’ values. You can choose to lead and act first. I can tell you from my experience and seeing others that you will love the change. Instead of loss, you'll save money and time, connect with your values, connect with nature. I’m not talking returning to the stone age. The opposite.

As I mentioned, heirloom tomatoes used to be called tomatoes. We can return to quality without losing modernity. We're seeing modern life decrease health, prosperity, and longevity. Eighty percent overweight and obese, millions dying from breathing air, tens of millions addicted to drugs, social media, Twinkies, and Doritos. My changes restore and increase health, prosperity, and longevity. Earth will host fewer people at a time, but more humans over the long future. Only they won’t barely survive in a poisoned, overheated hellhole.

My route leads to us living happier with a bit less stuff, better food, closer to family, less flying and shipping but more appreciation of our world and selves. What's so great about ten billion anyway? If we have to level off, why not a sustainable number? Two billion was more than enough to create Einstein and Mozart. A few hundred million produced Buddha, Jesus, Aristotle, Laozi, Muhammad, and the pyramids. We're overcrowded. A Buddha or Jesus today born to a favela might never realize his or her potential.

We can change that outcome. Most people focus on “one little thing you can do for the environment” or telling people how dire the situation. I won’t stop them, but they base their work on extrinsic motivation, often coercion ending up making people feel guilt and shame. I work with intrinsic motivation that is already inside you and unique to everyone. I don’t care if the first thing you do is big or small. I care that you care because if you do, you’ll find it meaningful. You’ll do it again. You’ll influence others. If you want to stop someone from doing something, a great way is to judge their first attempt. I do the opposite. I support after first listening.

I’ve taught many people what they’re now calling The Spodek Method to find your intrinsic motivation to act on the environment. You'll find when you do you want to act more. When you act for your reasons, you'll find meaning and purpose, independent of magnitude, and you'll want to act again. Soon enough you'll influence people around you.

The biggest change you can make is to lead others. It multiplies any other effect. To lead others you must first lead yourself. The Spodek Method does so. After you've led yourself, lead others with the Spodek Method.

My next book will teach it, as will upcoming courses. Or you can listen to me teaching it to one of my podcast guests, Jonathan Hardesty. I’ll put the link in the show notes. If you go to his third conversation with me you’ll hear me describe step-by-step how to motivate someone to share and act on their environmental values to create joy, freedom, fun, community, connection, meaning, and purpose. You can lead others through the method and they can lead you. You’ll love the experience and all it leads to. Leading others and teaching them to lead yet more others and to teach them to lead will transform culture.

We’ll restore the bounty of nature, where industrial tomatoes are a sad memory of humanity’s brief addiction to craving and tomatoes are tomatoes, unspeakably delicious.

More episodes

View all episodes

  • 795. 795: Lorraine Smith, part 1: Leaving mainstream "sustainability" to pursue actual sustainability

    01:17:35||Ep. 795
    Lorraine is one of the few people I know who saw mainstream sustainability efforts for what they are: ineffective and often counterproductive but self-congratulatory. I call most of them "stepping on the gas, thinking it's the brake, wanting congratulations."Unlike most others, once she saw their counterproductivity, if not outright lies, she left. She works to promote an "economy in service of life." I think it's easy to see that our current global economy is not serving life. The amount of life on earth is decreasing.Lorraine shares her history of ramping up on mainstream sustainability, her disillusionment, her acting by her values to exit, and her finding what to do. We also commiserate on the challenges we face in living by different cultures than mainstream. It's hard. We face headwinds every day, even from people who want to help us; especially from people trying to help us, like people who claim to be environmentalist but don't change culture or themselves.
  • 794. 794: Lorna Davis, part 3: Before taking the sustainability leadership workshop

    53:53||Ep. 794
    Lorna first appeared on this podcast in 2021. We became friends and remained so, though we challenge each other, as you'll hear in this conversation. We don't try to. Just things about the other annoy us. But how much we respect and learn from each other outshines that annoyance.Lorna knew about the Spodek Method and workshops for years. I don't know why she didn't join one until now, but something clicked and she decided to. I think meeting Evelyn led her to see the technique appealed to people like her and unlike me; that acting as much as I do on sustainability didn't result from a quirk of mine.In this episode, she shares her views, concerns, and thoughts about the workshop and how it might affect her and her relationships. We plan to record another conversation after she finishes the workshop. If you haven't thought about taking it, learn more about it here, then compare how you feel about taking it with what Lorna expresses.I don't know about you, but I'm curious how she'll experience it. Have I overpromised? Is there something quirky about me leading me to unique or unusual results?Don't forget to come back to listen to her experience after taking the workshop.
  • 793. 793: Nick Loris, part 1.5: Heartwarming nature, family, and fatherhood

    49:47||Ep. 793
    People I talk to on the political left who care about the environment see people on the political right as opponents to defeat. When I share that I talk to people from Heritage Foundation, where Nick worked, they sound skeptical at best, more commonly incredulous and fearful.In this episode, you'll hear heartwarming stories of Nick's childhood with his father, then Nick today finding a way to manifest what he experienced then. You'll also hear he just got married, so I predict the commitment he made in this episode helps contribute to his growing family life.I'm starting to find it hard to believe people see others as opponents regarding the environment and sustainability. Treating them that way makes things adversarial. I wish they'd stop. Let's see if working together, practicing sustainability leadership, such as with the Spodek Method, helps us work together to solve our environmental problems more effectively.
  • 792. 792: Travis Fisher, part 2: The spirit that America was founded on, Cato, and sustainability

    01:16:20||Ep. 792
    We recorded this conversation just after the election. We talked about it, especially Travis's and the Cato Institute's views. One of his main views is that the US puts too much executive authority in the president. I'm alsoWe shared our concerns about the Inflation Reduction Act coming from different standpoints, but agreeing with each other.Our main conversation was about approaching sustainability from a view of freedom, not coercion or imposing values. I share my view thatIf you think living more sustainably makes people’s lives worse, you have to become a better dictator.If you think living more sustainably improves people’s lives, you learn to become a better marketer, entrepreneur, or leader.Travis agrees on the problems with top-down coercion and we took off from there.My interview in Washington Square Park where the interviewer tried to rile me up.My post: If you think living more sustainably makes people’s lives worse, you have to become a better dictator. If you think living more sustainably improves people’s lives, you learn to become a better marketer, entrepreneur, or leader.
  • 791. 791: Sustainability Leadership Is a Performance Art

    01:06:59||Ep. 791
    I'm following up my recent solo post, 790: Talking to a guy injecting on the sidewalk, with another extemporaneous one. This one is also with a former podcast guest and fellow teacher of our sustainability leadership workshop, Evelyn Wallace.This episode gives an inside view of how I develop ideas in our entrepreneurial team. In particular, I share a few insights into what I offer in the workshops. I've long known to avoid facts, numbers, and lecture. I avoid convincing, cajoling, and coercing, which I call bludgeoning. Most sustainability work I know of go in those directions.I've long seen leadership as a performance art. We learn to practice arts through practicing the basics, which is why my books Leadership Step by Step and Initiative teach through experiential learning: practicing the basics.Our sustainability leadership workshops teach the basics of sustainability leadership. As with any skill or art, mastering it creates freedom to express oneself, as well as liberation, fun, self-expression, self-awareness, and other skills that make life transcendent.
  • 790. 790: Talking to a guy injecting on the sidewalk

    47:59||Ep. 790
    On a beautiful sunny Saturday, 9:50am, I was walking to Washington Square Park to charge my battery and talk at 10am to my friend Dan McPherson (he's been on the podcast, where he shared about his heart attack at age 46 the week before we recorded). I saw the guy in the picture injecting. I asked if I could take his picture and a brief conversation ensued.Instead of my planned conversation with Dan, we recorded my experience and thoughts about the conversation with the guy injecting on the sidewalk. I haven't edited anything. I recorded with just my headphone microphone so sorry about the audio quality, but I think you'll be able to understand us fine.I also didn't prepare. I'm not speaking from notes or even more than a few minutes to reflect. You'll get to hear my thoughts raw.As it happens, Dan is about a third of the way through my book, Sustainability Simplified. It came up in conversation, so you'll get to hear the impressions of someone who has read it. Only at the very end of the call did I think to text Dan the pictures, so listen to the end to hear his thoughts on the book.
  • 789. 789: Solomon Schmidt: Author of Legal Gladiator, on Alan Dershowitz

    53:40||Ep. 789
    As a podcast host, I get pitched a lot of authors, books, and more. Most aren't relevant or are counterproductive to sustainability. I received an email promoting the author of Legal Gladiator, a biography of Alan Dershowitz. I knew the name from the news, but didn't know more than the name, maybe a whiff of his being controversial.I looked up the book and author and found both fascinating. I scheduled talking to Solomon unrecorded to meet him and see if the connection would fit. I like bringing leaders from any field to sustainability since the field nearly completely lacks it. Solomon and Alan both seem like leaders, so I invited him.Quoting from the book's page:Praise for Solomon Schmidt:“You are a very talented young man with a bright future ahead of you.”—Pres. Donald Trump “An amazing young author.”—Mike Tyson “[You have] quite a remarkable record. [I’m] really impressed.”—Dr. Noam Chomsky “Solomon, thanks for all you do.”—Gov. Mike Huckabee “Solomon...is perhaps the youngest child historian in America.”—Steve Doocy“Solomon’s doing the hard work and getting after it.—Jocko Willink “[I have] admiration for all [Solomon is] doing to make this a better world—and a more educated world.”—Dame Jane Goodall"A reputable author."—Rep. Jamie RaskinWe talk mostly about Alan, though also about Solomon. We don't talk much about sustainability, though the leadership shines. I am confident you'll find this episode, Solomon, and Alan fascinating. I'd love your thoughts.
  • 788. 788: Susan Liebell: John Locke, Stewardship, and the US Constitution

    01:11:19||Ep. 788
    I quote Susan in my book, Sustainability Simplified. In it you'll see how much John Locke influenced my long-term vision for the US to understand and solve our environmental problems. Learning about the Thirteenth Amendment, which (mostly) banned slavery, and its improbable path to passage and ratification led me to think about solving our environmental problems similarly.I learned that many people working to abolish slavery worked hard when drafting the US Constitution to make it able to support abolitionism and to disallow property in man. Slaveholders opposed them, so they accepted compromises. Still, they put enough into the Constitution to enable weakening the institution enough to eventually end it. I wondered if sustainability might have similar precedent, like some law or phrasing of the Constitution that might have disallowed polluting or depleting.It turns out there was. It was in John Locke's Two Treatises on Government. The more I researched the man, his writings, and our Constitution, the more he seemed to apply to our environmental problems. That research led me to a paper by Susan Liebell, which I link to below.My conversation with Susan explore the application of his work and theories.Her paper that brought me to her: The Text and Context of "Enough and as Good": John Locke as the Foundation of an Environmental Liberalism
  • 787. 787: Travis Fisher, part 1: A nonpartisan, libertarian view on the environment from the Cato Institute

    46:26||Ep. 787
    I've been curious in what ways libertarian views on the environment and sustainability differ from conservative views. Travis worked at the Heritage Foundation, which is more conservative, and now works at the Cato Institute, which is more libertarian. Since I haven't spoken to many libertarians directly, I'm interested in this conversation to learn, so it's a conversation, not a debate.Early in our conversation, he describes some of their differences and similarities, and why he chose Cato. He shares some of his training and background that led him to his views.Then we talked about a few issues: the Inflation Reduction Act, regulation, how government funding of many programs results in industries growing without being profitable from its customers. We look at several moral hazards, including government gaining money and power from permitting polluting behavior and distributing funding evenly so everyone votes for something even if it doesn't help.We recorded just before the election so talked about recording again after the election to talk about how its results affect the political, energy, and pollution landscape.