Listed as co-author of Live Better article submitted to PNAS

I have been listed as a co-author of the article "The Meaning-or-Affluence Paradox: Wealth Undermines Meaning, Spirituality and Conformity Preserve It", which has been submitted to PNAS. The co-authorship is based on my data gathering in Norway in the Live Better research consortium.

Abstract: "Wealth and freedom: Beyond planet B"

I have just finished the book chapter abstract below, for an invited chapter contribution.

***

Wealth and freedom: Beyond Planet B

Author: Morten Tønnessen, Professor of philosophy, Department of social studies, University of Stavanger, Norway

Abstract

The Norwegian philosopher Peter Wessel Zapffe (1899–1990), a pioneer in Norwegian eco-philosophy and the conservation movement, can best be characterized as an eco-existentialist. In this chapter I discuss his economic outlook and compare it with philosophical and economic viewpoints of fellow-philosophers Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. His philosophy of technology had a critical favour, and he tended to assess technological innovations in light of how they affected what he called the “brotherhood of suffering”, ranging, according to Zapffe, from the amoeba to the human being. In his view, modern humans faced with existential dilemmas “save themselves” by using four “mechanisms of displacement”, namely isolation or expulsion of disturbing thoughts and emotions, conventional beliefs, distractions, and sublimation. As existentialists in general, he favors the authentic, autonomous life. In the context of nature conservation, Zapffe was outraged by the “vandalism” that takes place in modern society in the name of economic progress, because it destroys nature, but also because it removes possibilities for living a fulfilling, multifaceted life in nature (and where else are we?).

   A bridge between the thinking of Zapffe and that of John Stuart Mill is implied in the question: What sort of economy maximizes freedom, especially with regard to individual life style choices? The liberty to choose how to live one´s life is fundamental to a liberal such as Mill. He emphasizes the utility that human inventions and action patterns should have for us to label them as progressive or sound, and stresses the value for society of allowing a variety of individual lifestyle choices. Like Adam Smith, Zapffe too was concerned about the moral sentiments of people, though he had a bleaker view than Smith on the impact that egoism vs. altruism has on society´s development. Based on the ethical, existential and economical outlooks of Zapffe, Mill and Smith, I will look for commonalities and differences in their views on wealth and freedom. This will result in a liberal eco-philosophical vision of future societies.

   While environmentalists use “There is no planet B” as a slogan, economists and entrepreneurs are apparently not so sure. Once asked how he related to the prospects of human emigration to Mars, Zapffe (or rather his alias) replied: “Sure, and it'll be exciting the first week. Eventually, though, people will start worrying about how much to tax the uranium mines in order to keep the price of margarine down … the whole thing will repeat itself” (p. 57 in Zapffe 1992). The human condition won´t change by expanding the global economy beyond Earth, and if we don´t solve our current challenges here on Earth, it is not likely that we will solve them by settling on Mars, as entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Richard Branson have suggested. Earth´s resources are limited, as is the current economic mindset with its visions of endless growth. The logical end point for such visions is illustrated by Trantor, the administrative planet in a future galactic empire as portrayed by science fiction author Isaac Asimov in his Foundationnovel series. Trantor, with its planet-spanning indoor environment, is a planet were nature has vanished, to make room for the administration of systematic exploitation of resources elsewhere in the galaxy. On Trantor, “nature” is but a faint memory. Its wealth is impressive, but trantorians´ freedom with regard to lifestyle choices leaves much to desire.

Reference

Zapffe, Peter Wessel 1992. Farewell, Norway. Pp. 52–59 in Peter Reed & David Rothenberg (eds.), Wisdom in the Open Air: The Norwegian roots of deep ecology. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. 

Autumns 4,5th article writing day - solving environmental crisis

Today I had the 5-ish article writing day this autumn - half day, bringing total up to 4,5 days. I made an article abstract for my paper "Anticipating the societal transformation required to solve the environmental crisis in the 21st century: Umwelt trajectories revisited" (first held as a talk at NASS XI), meant for an invited special issue constitution (Sign Systems Studies). I have also started drafting an abstract work-titled "Wealth and freedom: Beyond Planet B".

"Future of growth" paper submitted to First WID.world Conference

I have submitted my published paper "The statistician´s guide to Utopia: The future of growth" (click to download PDF) to the organizers of "First WID.world Conference", arranged by Paris School of Economics (Paris, December 14-15th 2017).

GDP: Debate in The Economist

This week's online debate in The Economist concerns the following question:

This house believes that GDP growth is a poor measure of improving living standards.

Utopian Realism wrote:

Dear Sir,
for me it is impossible to answer the posted question with a simple 'yes' or 'no', because two matters appear to be confused at the very root of the debate:
a) whether or not GDP measures (there are various measures) are precise indicators of 'living standards'
b) whether or not growing GDP is a desirable political aim (for already wealthy nations)

It might very well be that the answer to a) is in the main yes, but the answer to b) no (if so, there is an optimal level of GDP, and GDP is not to be maximized, but optimalized).

This possibility, however, presupposes that the debate's term 'living standards' is highly ambiguous, and a poor choice of terms. Which it is. In market terms, GDP measures are quantitative measures (even though they do refer to the 'demand' of economic stakeholders with means). The 'living standard' Oswald has in mind appears to be of a qualitative nature.

The Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss distinguished systematically between 'standard of living' (a quantitative measure of wealth) and 'quality of life'. If such a distinction had been introduced in the polled question, I would have been able to take a stand. As it stands, a 'yes' would imply conceptual ignorance, and a 'no' ethical ignorance.