The key features are:
This was poasted in The Second Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction and also in the whitepapers and was part of our original course in Dec 2024.
Also posted in When was modernity born? - #4 by terrycd
Growth should not be in there. Progress does not equal growth, even in a modernistic view. Growth has always been there, driving everything. Even before we were human. If we blame that on modernity (or capitalism) then we will have identified the wrong enemy.
Democracy probably ought to be included somewhere in there too.
Hmmm, growth (as in economic/material growth) has a different flavor and strength i feel in capitalism (which comes from modernity) (and reason to have a sub-level of this diagram).
And quite agree it is important we donât blame everything on modernity - as is stated at started of white paper no 2. Modernity exacerbates pre-existing tendencies!
Yes, we want a line for resulting cultural/structural features. Democracy flows from a combination of individualism, equality and (in the background) rationality.
I feel Henrich, Weirdest people has a good thesis on this btw.
I think it makes sense to include growth, as âmodernityâ seems to be especially defined by it; for example, the concept of dynamic stabilization suggests that the very structure requires that it outperforms itself/grows to merely maintain itself-which is not always the case in other situations. Also just a friendly reminder that in these discussions to aim to frame things with a little more tolerance, for example, âIn my opinion growth doesnât belongâ; not making your opinion seem objectively true (ie.âit should not be thereâ). Just more of a community-practice point which I think makes the discussion more co-creative and open-minded, and which I personally would prefer to engage with! Hope thatâs alright 
Is this really true? Is modernity any more defined by growth than any of what went before? Humans have always been trying to grow our operation on this planet â in every sort of way we can think of. What changed with modernity was our capabilities for making it happen â we became much better at it. But we became much better at countless other things too (which for me is closer to the essence of modernity â improved level of knowledge of how to manipulate the natural world, though without the wisdom needed to do this safely).
I see what your saying, and its an interesting point: that growth is always there, its part of life, perhaps the essential driving force, behind it all, so why would it be included? Nonetheless it is possible to imagine social organization which is not âobsessedâ with growth, and whoâs social structure does not necessarily require growth to reproduce. I still think âdynamic stabilizationâ is unique to modernity, and not necessarily other time periods and forms of social organization, which, even though they might âgrowâ to some degree and âgrowthâ might be seen as some kind of constant driving force in all human operations, does not necessarily manifest on the âsystem scaleâ the way it does in modernity, whoâs very stability requires growth.
Alternatively, perhaps âaccelerationâ could be a possible fit (or combined with growth) which Rosa himself would say is more characteristic of modernity. Acceleration is concerned with the speeding up of our experience of time, which leads in turn to dynamic stabilization- the idea that we must do more and produce more merely to stabilize.
Absolutely. Which has led some people to believe in a Technological singularity - Wikipedia. But this is an illusion. That isnât going to be how this endless acceleration ends. Itâs not how all the hockey stick graphs are going to end. Instead what is going to happen is that the underlying ecosystem will break, and the whole edifice will come crashing down. Especially energy-hungry technologies like AI and cryptocurrencies.
We are still accelerating, but weâre accelerating towards an ecological and energy cliff.
âGrowthâ. Such a divisive concept ⌠but is that perhaps because it is being understood in different ways? I canât think of anyone here who would support, e.g. endless growth in material consumption. I canât think of anyone who would not support growth in some context like psychological and spiritual growth. And who does not support the growth of an embryo into a baby, a baby into a child, a child into an adult? Sure, adult development is a little more contentious.
Iâm just saying, maybe we can avoid arguments about growth by (a) not assuming that people mean stupid things, and (b) qualifying what kind of growth we are talking about â sure that may feel tedious to begin with, but I would say worth the effort.
Here is an article I wrote awhile back on that exact point. âDegrowthâ is a political loser, among other things. Also, watching plants, animals, and children grow is what life is all about!
People who have abortions?
Iâm just saying, maybe we can avoid arguments about growth by (a) not assuming that people mean stupid things, and (b) qualifying what kind of growth we are talking about â sure that may feel tedious to begin with, but I would say worth the effort.
Without the qualification, the probability that people are saying stupid things is very high indeed. Pretty much the whole of mainstream economics and politics falls into this category.
Let me be clear, I did not intend to designate any class of things as âstupidâ, I was just saying letâs not assume that people mean things that we ourselves individually see as stupid. Indeed, I would hope that there little if anything that I see as âstupidâ. Thatâs what Iâm aiming for, personally â not to see things as stupid, but to look for the sense that they do make to the person saying them. Hoping that is clearer now.
When Musk calls Navarro an âidiotâ, I donât see that as a helpful positive mode of communication, no matter how much I agree with the idea that what Navarro advocates seems to me highly misguided and likely to lead to all kinds of negative consequences. Itâs simply not the kind of language that I see as constructive in this forum, or any 2R space for that matter. If people feel that way, they can always express themselves differently, from an âIâ perspective, like âwhen I see the reports of what Navarro has said and done I feel angry, because âŚâ. Thatâs owning the anger rather than externalising it. Short tweets on X are, unsurprisingly and unfortunately, well-adapted for that kind of unhelpful language.
What is the correct description of believing that infinite growth is possible in a finite physical system?
For me âstupidâ doesnât go far enough in this case. It is beyond stupid. Is âpsychoticâ a better word? No positive description is possible.
not to see things as stupid, but to look for the sense that they do make to the person saying them
So why does the above belief make sense to so many people? Why is it that so few people are capable of arriving at the conclusion âGrowth is unsustainableâ?
I think we need to recognise exactly how insane growth-based economics actually is.
I feel we are getting to the core of something here, @GeoffDann I will reply at greater length when I have the opportunity.
Okay, here goes.
I see layers here. First, I suppose that anyone who acts as if (in our view) infinite growth (in material terms) is possible, cannot be actually aware of that. So I assume that they are seeing things differently. Maybe they have never actually thought through the limits to growth. Maybe they are one of those who believe in âgreen growthâ â we may differ in our beliefs, but we canât say a priori that they are mad.
So I would hope my approach in this situation would be to say something like, âfrom my point of view, this looks like âŚâ, maybe âhave you considered it from that perspective?â and âhow do you think of growth?â Again, a kind of Socratic approach, not trying to force my opinions down their throat, but inviting them to see (what I think of as) their lack of awareness.
Second, about âcorrect descriptionâ. People describe things from different perspectives, and their descriptions are different. Different descriptions serve different ends. My description (as above) might be something like âthis person doesnât see things in the way I doâ and if that is very important to me I might try to persuade them â and that would take us into the territory of what is the most effective way of persuading people. I am very clear that combative approaches almost never work, and usually provoke reaction which often serves to entrench peopleâs positions, not to bring people together. (I really donât need to refer to USA politics to demonstrate this point.)
I would rephrase âcorrectâ, perhaps, as âwhat description serves my purposes bestâ? Then think about oneâs purposes, and act accordingly. Asking for help can work wonders here.
Moving on
First, people donât have that belief, as that belief is embedded in your ontology, not theirs. And, as I alluded to above, there are (or at least have been) many people who believe in âgreen growthâ. I assume they mean that economic growth can happen without any increase in the use of energy or resources. I do not want to argue that case here, that is absolutely not the point. I am just pointing out that, misguided or not, some people hold that belief, and thus they believe that (economic) growth is sustainable. When you say âarrive at the conclusionâ is seems like you are expecting people to follow reasoning like your reasoning. Again, here, that is often not the case.
This is where I can see the problem most clearly.
Very good to start with âI thinkâ. And this allows in other peopleâs views. The rest of the sentence could well make sense in your way of thinking. And probably, the substance, if not the tone, makes sense to many people here. I expect most people here donât buy into growth-based economics. But the âneed to recognise exactly how insaneâ it âactually isâ? The word âactuallyâ suggests to me that you think you know the truth here, and that other people donât recognise it. To me that is exactly the problem in the frame of maintaining civilised discourse in this forum.
You could say, instead, for example, âI see growth-based economics as insaneâ, and though that isnât likely to make you many converts from adherents to growth, at least it is stating your opinion, and hinting at how it makes you feel. If I wanted to engage those with that viewpoint (not that they are here, though) I might say something more like âcan someone explain to me how growth-based economics is compatible with the finite resources of our planet?â And, maybe, we would get some narrative that would serve as a starting point for first, understanding their mindset, and then opening it up for questioning.
It is my very clear experience that many people only become ready to listen when they feel their point of view has been heard. But then who listens first? I see it as the responsibility of us, if we aspire to being second renaissance folk, to be the ones who listen first.
@GeoffDann , Iâm thinking it would be good if we could have a live conversation just between us before you reply⌠would that be possible? I hope so.
That can be arranged. I need to use my wifeâs ancient Mac though, so some preparation is needed.
Regarding your previous two posts, I do take on board what you are saying. I also feel it is not so simple â it is not so easy for me to just change my language in this way without failing to be true to what I really think. My psychology is strongly shaped by the experience of spending a month in a psychiatric hospital aged 20, during which time I was forced to arrive at the conclusion that even though the world had decided I was mad â and locked me up â in reality the problem was the other way around. I wasnât mad. The real problem is that I was sane, and the world is mad. I wasnât psychotic â my problem was that I was in contact with reality, not that I had lost contact with it. This was the only way I could make sense of what had happened to me. And since then Iâve never really seen myself as belonging to the society I live in. Iâve always felt on the edges, or even on the outside looking in. In many respects, I feel I donât have much in common with ânormal peopleâ.
This is probably coming through in some of my comments in a way that is setting off alarm bells here. It is perhaps another example of the individualism that you expressed a dislike for in the seagull book. âOutcastâ is how I feel a lot of the time.
(I hope that wasnât too much of a reply before our conversation).
Thanks, Geoff, Iâll reply with contact details in a PM
