 That's part of the problem that we have now with our current civilization has become sort of locked into this paradigm of economic growth, which we know on a finite planet is just not possible. And we know that all other organisms and species grow for a while and then they level off and they can continue to develop and become better at what they do. But material growth beyond a certain limit is just not in the cards. We are in a multi-crisis situation, but in a sense that creates an opportunity to make these kinds of changes. Once we recognize that, hey, we are hitting rock bottom, we've got to try something different and simply trying to get back on the same treadmill that we were on before, I think it's becoming more and more obvious to people that that's not the solution. As Dana Meadows has pointed out, what's really important is to provide the vision and then let the path kind of reveal itself. That's what's going to be needed to really engage the general public in this process and to get them on board and enthusiastic about trying to achieve that vision because it has to be more than just, you know, we don't like what we have, it's got to be, here's what we want, you know, here's what we're trying to create. Hello everyone and welcome to the Circular Metabolism podcast, the bi-weekly meeting where we have in-depth discussions with researchers, policymakers and practitioners to better understand the metabolism of our cities, or in other words, how our societies consume and emit emissions and how to reduce their environmental impact in a socially just, context-specific and systemic way. I'm your host, Aristide from Metabolism of Cities and today we'll have an in-depth discussion about our addiction, our society's addiction to economic growth. How did we get addicted to growth? How did we get addicted to a concept such as GDP, whereas the creator of that concept warned us that we shouldn't use it to value our economic prosperity? We had many warnings over the years. We've known the problems, we even know the solutions, and yet we don't manage to move ahead. So what is wrong? What is stopping us from moving ahead? There are some underlying problems with that addiction that we need to address if we want to move forward. To discuss about this addiction and how to get out of it, I'm very, very happy to speak with Robert Kuzanza, Bob is Professor of Ecological Economics at the Institute for Global Prosperity at the University College London. His transdisciplinary research integrates the study of humans and the rest of nature to address research, policy and management issues at multiple time. You probably know his work already. He has contributed to the development of very, very important concepts such as the valuation of ecosystem services, planetary boundaries. So you already have read his work, even if you don't know it. His latest book is called Addicted to Growth, Societal Therapy for a Sustainable Well-Being Future, that just came out. And I want to take this time with you, Bob, to perhaps present a bit yourself and also your work. And to start us off, I want to jump in with your backstory because you studied architecture at the very beginning, and then you jumped in systems ecology. How does an architect become interested by this vast scale and theory of systems ecology? Yeah, well, I was fortunate, I think, to be in an architecture program. I started actually in engineering and I thought there was a little too cut and dried and I wanted something a little more creative. So architecture seemed to be a good compromise. And during that program, I got involved with some professors who were working with Howard Odom on a project trying to understand the patterns of land use change in South Florida. And my master's thesis, actually, in the architecture department was preparing a series of land use maps for the Kissimmee Everglades Basin in Florida just to see how things had changed over that time period and trying to explain why and how they changed and what the future might hold. So that was really a kind of landscape ecology program or thesis as much as an architecture thesis. And it certainly had to do with urban planning and those sorts of issues as well. And as part of that, I got fortunately got involved in the project that was ongoing with with H.D. Odom looking at that that system over time. And and my PhD dissertation had to do with how that South Florida land use had changed and how how energy flowed through these kind of economic and ecological systems. And of course, that was all about how systems function, not just economies, not just societies, not just the environment, but how the whole system that you look at from from space. You look at planet Earth, you know, it's a it's a highly integrated system. So and and the ideas there were that, you know, you can't understand these pieces of the system without understanding the context and the rest of the system that they're they're embedded in. So, you know, from that, this idea of an ecological economics sort of was a natural natural outflow that really got started. I think more when I moved to my first job at Louisiana State University and with and became colleagues with Herman Daley, who was on the economics faculty there and several other colleagues who were studying, you know, coastal coastal land use and coastal ecology. So and from there, it continued. But I think ever since it's been, you know, how do we understand these complex systems and how do we make? How do we how do we use that knowledge really to make a better future? It's not just understanding where we are, but and where and where we seem to be headed. But could we go to a better future? Yeah, and I think as you mentioned, you have several components which are essential when you study any system that you learned back in those days. And that probably you have taken for ecological economics as a general field, right? I mean, you talked about space, you talked about time. Where are some of the key components that you will now use every day since your, you know, your original studies of the wetlands and and these ecosystems? Well, I think one of the one of the key elements in understanding systems is how does energy flow through these systems? I mean, they're all dependent on on on on energy in some way. And really, they're about converting energy and, you know, sort of creating ordered structures to as part of the system. So this whole idea of urban metabolism, I think fits fits quite well into that. And thinking of cities, you know, not just as built infrastructure, but thinking of them as as complex systems, just like any other ecosystem. They just happen to have, you know, a dominant species that happens to build the kind of structures that that we build. You know, but it's it's, you know, in essence, not not completely different from from any other ecosystem. Once you look at those those basic fundamental similarities. So and in trying to understand also how these systems evolve and, you know, some of the problems that that that species can run can run into. So there can be, you know, lock in species, go extinct all the time because conditions change and they're not able to adapt quickly enough. They get locked into a particular mode of behavior. And I think that's that's part of the problem that we we have now with our our current civilization, you know, has become has become sort of locked into this paradigm of economic growth, which we know on a on a finite planet is is just not possible. So and we know that all other organisms and species, you know, grow for a while and then they they they level off and they can continue to develop, you know, and become become better at what they do. But material growth, you know, beyond a certain beyond a certain limit, it's just not it's just not in the cards. So I think it's really it's really crazy that that at least some economists, you know, have and politicians have gotten locked into this idea that that growth can continue indefinitely. And we need to to sort of recognize the the fallacy there and and and show people that there is a better way. We don't have to have a growing economy. I mean, for the vast majority of human history, we didn't have growing economies in the first place. And and that's not really the goal anyway. The goal is, you know, to have a high quality of life that's that's equitably shared for for everyone. And also, you know, to protect the rest of nature, not just the human part, but all the other parts of our spaceship that we that we depend on. So it's funny because you said most of the economists will would think another way and you and some other colleagues are a different species of economists, the ecological economists. I had the pleasure to to talk with a number of them through the podcast. I mean, Herman, before he passed away, and Marina Fischukowalski, Juan Martinez Aguirre, a number of people who who come also from different disciplines, right? They're not economists by training per se. And I think that's the richness of it. And I think perhaps that's what you managed to depict to the inter or trans disciplinarity of economics. Thanks to that. No, right. And ecological economics is was not designed as a discipline, you know, designed as a trans discipline, recognizing that that we have to look at the whole system. And we could have called it systems economics or, you know, something something different, but ecological seem to imply that we have to think of the economy as part of the broader ecosystem. And and also it's it's not like we're trying to create something that's totally distinct from all of the existing disciplines. We want to utilize the knowledge that's already there, but bring it together and integrate it in a more effective way and and recognize the basic fundamental rule that all models are wrong, you know, but some are useful. So it's really about creating useful models that will help us create a better world. And I think the the standard mainstream economic model, which was useful for a time there, I think, but, you know, has really become counterproductive if, you know, in some of its some of its assumptions. So we need to create a better, more useful model that we can that we can use. But but still being humble enough to recognize that, you know, that that model itself is also not complete, at least and not not wrong and and be able to adapt and learn and change. So it's it's really about creating a framework that allows, you know, new knowledge to come in and be incorporated. Yeah. Perhaps can can we provide some diagnosis by using this model or framework or where the main key insights? Well, I think the society was built in 89 or something like that. So it's been 35 years or so. Yeah. So what you and your colleagues have distilled in these years? I mean, there are some basic fundamental facts. I guess that I think I think are hard to are hard to refute that that we were structured around. And the first is that we do live in this interdependent system that the economy is embedded within society, which is embedded within the rest of nature. And, you know, we can't look at those those subsystems independently. We have to think of their interactions, especially now in in the Anthropocene epic, as it's been called, recognizing that the activities of of humanity are having a major impact on how our life support system functions. So we can't just assume that, you know, nature will take care of itself and will absorb, you know, all of the the waste that we produce and continue to function, you know, as it as it always has because because our activities are are are much more impactful these days. So we have to take that into into account. And I think that changes things, you know, we're not in an empty world any longer as as as Herman Daley has said, we're in a full world. We're in, you know, we're we're approaching or exceeding planetary boundaries, you know, in several key areas, you know, we are affecting the climate. The climate is changing and and many other things. So I think that's the that's the key the key aspect. And I think there's also the the fundamental goals that we're trying to achieve are a bit different from the conventional view, you know, which assume that, you know, the more we produce and consume, the better off people are going to be. And, you know, all else being equal, that's that's probably OK. But the problem is all else is not equal. And this, you know, addiction to growth is now having a lot of negative side effects, it's actually leading us to to disaster, essentially. So I think that's the other key element is that we have to get beyond this addiction to growth and recognize how consumption contributes to well being and when it doesn't. And what other things also contribute to well being community, you know, interaction with nature, the whole spectrum of basic human needs that that need to be fulfilled for people to lead a satisfying life that's that's also sustainable, you know, so we also have to understand the long term implications of what we're doing, you know, it may be fine today, but if it's something that that's not sustainable, then that's not so good either. So it has to be both sustainable and desirable. And I think those are the that's the other the other key elements. What does that world look like? And I think if you get back to the addiction metaphor, you know, what one of the therapies that seems to work quite quite well with in overcoming overcoming addictions is something called motivational interview, as I talk about in the in the book, which does not confront addicts, you know, with their problem, but instead engages them in a discussion of their life goals, you know, what are they trying to achieve? And so by analogy, that's what is necessary really to motivate the kinds of difficult changes that that are needed, both in overcoming addictions and in changing business practices. And, you know, in achieving anything difficult, I think it really is important to have a clear shared goal. And I think that's what's that's what's missing right now, is that that broadly shared alternative to to a growing GDP kind of world. There's some, you know, significant progress in that direction, you know, with the UN Sustainable Development Goals process. I think it's kind of the first time in human history that all the countries in the world have agreed on a set of goals that are that are much broader than simply GDP growth. And and yet, you know, progress toward achieving those goals is is not as fast as as we would really want either. So how do we broaden that engagement and get, you know, the rest of the world to to understand that there is a there is a different way. There is a different world that that could be better, more sustainable, steady state, but, you know, but one that that really does provide sustainable well-being. And I think, I mean, the vision is what you mentioned being the most important. We're going to spend some time on it. I think as you mentioned, so there is this societal addiction. And as you write in the book for an addiction, we first need to know that it's harmful for us. There's the knowledge part. And then we also need to seek short term rewards where we when we know that it's unsustainable on the long run. Right. So I think before we we spend some more time on how to overcome this addiction. What's made us I mean, we talk about the great acceleration, right? But what where are some components that made us. Well, getting the societal trap in this in this trap that. Yeah. OK, now GDP is our only holy. The holy grail, right? Yeah, exactly. Well, I mean, the history of it comes. I mean, GDP was only invented really in the in the 30s, you know, during the Great Depression and really formalized at the end of World War Two at the at the Brentwoods Conference. So it's not it's not, you know, possible in any sense. It's something that that we created to try and understand how, you know, the economy produces marketed goods and services. And it's sort of limited limited to that. And and, you know, by many accounts, it was critical for the Allies, you know, to win World War Two to have this this concept of GDP, because we had to produce guns and boats and, you know, weapons faster than than than the axis. And we did. And that was used as an argument to actually produce or what was it? I think it was Russel that said we if we do the statistics, we have 10 percent and something like that. So it's we're OK. We can produce and go to war. Right, right, right. We can win this war. We can crack out, you know, enough enough material. And so it, you know, that was it was essential for that for that purpose. You know, and at at at Brentwoods, you know, the Allies designed the World Bank and the IMF and and other mechanisms to sort of stabilize those those economies and the international trade process. And, you know, and saw that GDP, OK, we need to measure how big these economies are. And that that was one one of the best ways to do it. But as, you know, Simon Kuznitz and others, you know, at the time, the architects of GDP warned, you know, OK, this is for measuring marketed economic activity, but it's not measuring welfare. At best, it's measuring income and it's not even measuring sustainable income. It's measuring just marketed activity. So how we got in mind that that was the only thing or the main thing. I mean, after World War Two, there was a lot of rebuilding that had to go on. And so that, you know, the built capital and economic activity like that was probably the limiting factor in improving people's lives. The problem is that now the limiting factor has become, you know, our natural capital and our social capital. The other things that affect affect well being that are now being negatively impacted by all of that that GDP growth. And, you know, in the same sense that, you know, and addicts when you first start taking the drug, it's great. You know, you have all the positive positive things that the drug produces. And it's only later that you see the negative repercussions, you know, that it has on your body and your lifestyle on a whole range of your social interactions, etc. So I think we're in that sort of analogous situation. The fossil fuel sector is certainly a complicit in this in this addiction metaphor because, yes, the great acceleration was largely fueled by fossil fuels, especially oil. And so that increased our ability to produce, you know, built infrastructure dramatically, but it also had the negative side effects on climate and on the rest of the environment, etc. And those negative side effects were known, you know, by the fossil fuel sector early on, there's a lot of evidence that's just coming out now that they they predicted, you know, global global warming much better and much more accurately than than some of the scientists were doing at the at the time. So, you know, it's been the pusher, you know, being complicit in this process and knowing that these these the drugs are are producing negative effects, but but continuing because it has positive feedbacks on their their bottom line. So can you make the parallel with the tobacco industry as well? The tobacco industry did exactly the same thing. In fact, it's it's true that many of the same, you know, advertising agencies that were working for tobacco are now working for fossil fuels, you know, to try to to try to muddy the waters and and and buy politicians and etc. So those are all part of the reason that we we haven't made the progress that we that we should have been making over the last couple decades, you know, specifically on climate, but I think it's also true on a lot of other a lot of other fronts having to do with redistribution of wealth and and and management and of the the natural environment in several different ways. Yeah. And I think I really enjoy this this notion of societal trap. I mean, investment traps or, you know, some some cost fallacy is something that we understand in terms of, you know, fossil fuel assets. Yeah. But we can also see it more broadly as a society that we think we have too much to lose by exiting this growth paradigm or I don't know what it is, but we were really and you mentioned it further down ahead. It's not just changing the individual behaviors and practices. It's it's much more than that. We need a cultural site or shift in order to get out of this trap. Right. Right. Yeah. And overcoming these investment traps, you know, is is admittedly difficult. So it's not surprising really that that and often people think, well, you know, we know what we have to do. Why aren't we doing it? Well, I think this is an explanation for why not. And it and it occurs in a lot of different contexts, as I said, you know, I talked about the dollar auction game, which is a really interesting phenomena. I don't know if you read about that in the in the book. But yeah. Yeah. But please you can you can say it here as well. I think people would be interested. So, you know, it turns out you can auction off a dollar for much more than a dollar in almost any crowd. And the only difference is that the highest bidder and the second highest bidder have to both pay the auctioneer, whereas only the highest bidder gets the prize. So when one bidder is at 95 cents and the other bidder is at a dollar, the guy at 95 cents as well. If I raise to a dollar five, you know, I only lose five cents. If I drop out, I lose 95 cents. It's rational to raise to bid more than a dollar for a dollar. And that process will continue, you know, up to ridiculous heights in the experiments that have been done. And that's because people people feel like they're they're invested in, you know, the the process they've they've invested so much that they have to justify that that investment by by continuing. So it kind of explains arms races. It explains, you know, the the the continuance of the neoclassical economic paradigm. It explains, I think, a lot of a lot of things that we should have changed, but but haven't just because we're sort of invested in, locked in, you know, addicted to that the the current that the current behavior and you have to sort of be able to step outside of that and see the process, I think, for for what it is in order to to build a therapy. I think in this, indeed, of we need to zoom out or step outside of this box that we've created in order to to change stuff. And you also mentioned that we need to to change the the actual rules and incentives that set the trap in the first place, right? I mean, we cannot work along by just mere improvement or enhancing what we have. We need to change the entire structure. And yeah. And I think that I think of it, yeah. No, I think it gets back to changing the fundamental goals that the system is trying to pursue, you know, and and often people think, well, it's individual behavior that we have to change, you know, if everybody stopped eating so much meat, if everybody stopped flying, if everybody stopped driving so much, you know, stopped consuming as much as they do, it would all be good. So it's really up to us as individuals to change. But, you know, we're we're stuck in the context of the system. And so people can't change their behavior, you know, as much as as as they would like, as they want to do just because they're, you know, they have to go to work. They have to make money. They have to they're stuck in the system. So you have to change the system in order to enable people to change their behavior in the way that that is needed. How do you change the system? That's that's the that's the key element. How do these systems transform themselves? And I think that's going to take a change in fundamental goals. And to do that is going to take a political process that involves, you know, the larger, larger civil society, recognizing that the kind of world that we want is not the kind of world that we're in or that we're headed towards. And certainly that's happened several times in the past. You know, there have been revolutions. The problem is getting a revolution that's positive, that actually leads to a better state that doesn't have a, you know, that doesn't require a violent transition, but but it's something that's more that's more more equitable and more smooth. And that's that's, I think, totally possible as well. And the surveys that have been done, you know, people around the world, I think show that the vast majority of people would like the kind of world that the SDGs represent. They would like a world that's much more equitably distributed, where wealth is much more equitably distributed. They would like a world where climate is stable. They would like all of those things. They would like to have a future. Yeah, yeah. They would like to have a sustainable future for their children. So it's not that people like where we're headed. It's quite the contrary. So I think the challenge is, well, how do you consolidate that movement? How do we get to that tipping point? You know, where that where that worldview and that desire for that kind of world is becomes becomes the dominant vision. And we can use that to to to overcome this this addiction in the same analogous way that, you know, if an addict can really establish their their life goals, that's enough to that can help to motivate these these changes. That's that motivation that's that's still missing. And it has to come from that the shared vision. And also, I think there is some myths that need to be deconstructed. I mean, we'll get later into that as well. But, you know, the strategy of the commons that were a bit doomed and and humans are not capable of taking care of the planet and things like that. I think, yeah, once again, you don't know whether it's the fossil should be that kind of pushed that into us or there is something more to it than than this. Well, and if we want to go on that down that route, I think I think the tragedy of commons really is the tragedy of open access to to commute to common resources, you know, and as Eleanor Ostrom has pointed out, lots of societies have designed institutions that effectively manage commons in a way that's sustainable and that and that provides well-being for the for the whole community. So it's certainly not impossible, but it does require that we establish property rights, you know, over those those assets, but they have to be community rights rather than than private rights. So we've actually recommended, you know, that we think of the atmosphere as a community asset and establish property rights on behalf of the whole population and then, you know, whoever damages that property has to pay for those damages. So it provides an institutional framework for for charging for for carbon emissions. Instead of thinking of it as a market, you think of it as a common asset that we're we're managing and protecting and charging for damages to in the same way that we would charge for damages from an oil spill and then use that use that income to undo the damages to compensate for people who are affected, you know, to make the transformation to renewable energy that much quicker and, you know, those damages are largely going to fall on the fossil fuel sector. So I think that's it's also a way of of reducing their influence and income and ability to to sort of hold back the transition that that needs to happen. But these this idea of common asset trust I think can be applied at a lot of different levels, you know, from from watersheds to the oceans and the atmosphere and we're certainly working on on those sorts of institutional arrangements, you know. So and like Peter Barnes said in his book, Capitalism 3.0, we need a whole common sector in the economy or a much expanded common sector that that can manage these kinds of of of resources that that natural capital and social capital represent. Yeah, I mean, we can discuss on the or the governance aspect of it is like a sociocracy and how we need to bear well, govern flows, govern stocks and all of this. I think one important element that you have included here and I've read in many services is that a number of people are ready to change if there is some sense of just the transition elements of fairness, elements of equity. And I think in a number of and you presented the cases of Sweden, of South Africa, where in order to deescalate and to move ahead into a very well, out of a big tension, sometimes you can resolve it by accepting one or the others, the other one point of view, you need somehow to to find a common ground, a consent of a few of a well, collaborative future. Yes. And that's the building a shared vision, you know, a process, I guess. And and it doesn't have to mean, you know, complete consensus. You don't have to agree, have to agree on everything. But I think it's a search for what are the what are the common elements that that everyone at least can consent to. And and I talked in the book a little bit about this idea of sociocracy, which which is, you know, how do you how do you govern the society in a way that that is is for the the benefit of the majority. And if you did, you know, just a majority voting rule, then you have forty nine percent of the population is dissatisfied with whatever the decision is, and they'll often then work to do everything they can to get back to fifty one percent and then change the whole thing, you know, back to something else. So you get this oscillating and polarized kind of kind of political system. And you also have politics these days, you know, democracies are not really democratic, you know, they're since they're controlled by special interests far too much. And so the idea of deliberative democracy has also been suggested that that, in fact, a lot of our key decisions should be made by citizens assemblies that where the representatives are more are randomly selected rather than than voted in so that they they can't be influenced by by special interests. And those sorts of citizens assemblies, you know, if they're allowed to deliberate, bring in experts, et cetera, they come to very reasonable and acceptable decisions, you know, to the to the majority of the of the population. So we I think we do need to redesign our our governance systems going forward, you know, it's been said that especially if people are affected by the decisions, right, is there the primary beneficiaries or on the opposite? Well, that will be inflicted by the policies, right? And, you know, there's studies that show that that, in fact, the will of the people, the the policies and decisions that the majority of people wanted are not the things that that happened in most democracies. It's the will of the special interests that that actually happened. So, you know, democracy is a good idea. And I think we ought to try it. Yeah, it could be nice. Yeah, I mean, you mentioned it, that is obvious interest from some stakeholders to not change, right? I mean, that the system remains unchanged. So as a scientist, of course, we we always get to measure the flows and then optimize them and then find solutions. And then we're like, but the solutions are here. Why they're not and then a political economist will come next to you and will tap you on the shoulder and tell you, well, it's because they're actors and they're vested interests. And you're like, OK, right. And how to overcome those vested interests, I think, is is that is the challenge. But it's got to come from, you know, the rest of civil society getting on board and enforcing, forcing their hands, essentially. And and like an addiction, it's difficult. So you can't expect it to be. Oh, yeah, once we've pointed out that, or even if we have the majority of the population on board, like with smoking, you know, I mean, I think the majority of the population was on board. Smoking is a problem. People should not smoke. We should not, you know, really encourage smoking. We should do things to limit that still. You know, it's it still has taken a long time to get that message really through to the to the system. And it's still probably not there. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's getting there. But yeah. OK, perhaps we can talk about the common vision that we we should build together, right? In order to to to get there and to agree upon and to look at the values. You say that we don't only need to build a consensus, this, of course. But we need to provide a vision that is not only coherent, but also detailed enough, something that we can that is tangible, right? And I think that is important to paint a picture that is, you know, we can see the colors, we can see the the people in the picture, we can see the landscape, we can see everything. What is this picture looking like? Well, I think that's where we need the arts community to get involved in this process. And, you know, we need some some films that are set in this positive vision of the future. And there are a few of them out there. But, you know, the majority of films about the future are really dystopic rather than in utopic. And so we need to change that around. There's a film called 2040. I'm not sure if you've run across that one by Damon Jimmo from Australia that's set in the near term positive future. And we've been working with Damon to to produce some short films that are set in alternative visions of the future so that people can can get, you know, can see the colors a bit, can see the details. What would life be like, you know, in this in this world that we're we're talking about, and it becomes more than just a set of bullet points, you know, that and I think that's that's what's going to be needed to it to really engage the general public in this process and to get them on board and enthusiastic about trying to achieve that vision because it has to be more than just, you know, we don't like what we have. It's got to be here's what we want. You know, here's here's what we're trying to create. You know, the bullet points are, you know, it's got to be more equitable. We have to distribute wealth and income much more equitably than it is now because it's gotten ridiculous and so, you know, we have enough wealth and resources on the on the planet to really provide for the for the whole population a decent quality of life. But, you know, we have to how do we do that? Well, we're going to have to increase taxes on the wealthy significantly and redistribute that income. We have to have universal basic something, whether it's income or services or, you know, possibilities, but there has to be a floor, you know, where where everyone is is OK. And and then and the so rebuild a welfare system and nets. Yeah, something like that. And and again, I'm not sure of the details and those those details will probably be different from place to place. So I don't think you can you can provide a, you know, like here's the path from here to from here to there, because we're not all at the same starting point and probably not all at the same ending point. But as Dana Meadows has pointed out, you know, what's really important is to provide the vision and then let the path kind of reveal itself, you know, as long as you're focused on where you're trying to get to, you know, you can you have to change the the set of the sales. You have to change your attack from time to time. It's going to be, you know, it may require some adaption adaptation and this whole idea of adaptive governance and adaptive management, I think is is key as well. You know, we can't say right now here are the policies that are going to get us there because they may not work or they may not work as we plan them to. We have to say here are some experiments we're going to try. You know, here's our initial attack on the on our sail towards the goal. And we'll see how it's going. You know, and if it's working, we'll stay there. And if it's not working, we have to build in the ability to change tack and to move back towards the towards the goal. So I think that's that's part of the problem, too, that people will always come back with, well, yeah, what do we have to do right now? And what's the policy? What are the changes? Tell me what to do. Well, first thing to do is to figure out where we're going. And then once that's established, then we can go back and say, OK, are we headed in the right direction? And we, you know, and if we're not, then we need to then we need to change. And how to change and how much to change? I think that's that's also going to be a much more participatory process. Because if that comes from, you know, if that's if that's totally top down or coming from sectors of the of the system that they are not really representative of the whole population, then it's not going to work in the long run either. And we've certainly seen that before. You know, if it becomes an auto autocratic dictatorial system, then, you know, the direction that that that it ends up is not where people want to be. So we have more or less the the set of coordinates which are on the one hand, the planetary boundaries, on the other one, let's say the social floor and and we need to navigate in between them and and find the right balance. Yeah. Yeah. So the doughnut is a good is a good picture, I guess, that that seems to resonate with people that to recognize that there are constraints on on both ends. You know, you can't get too big, you have to stay within planetary boundaries. We still have to supply, you know, the basics of human needs. I think we need, you know, different terminology as well. I mean, one one term that I like is the Swedish word lagom, which means everybody has just enough. So it's not about sacrifice. It's not about overconsumption. It's saying that, you know, we're all good. Everybody's everybody's got just what they need and and not too much. Yeah. Yeah. Of course, I think that's what's the most interesting is when you go into the ground and larity of it, because I was talking with Kate, for instance, how do you apply the doughnuts model to a city? Because a city per se is an open system and lives by, you know, extracting or like a parasite somehow that that needs a hintreland to function with and what is just into a territory that still gets from outside and how do you cooperate with? And I think all of this is very interesting. And when you say enough, how do you make this illustrative? Because I guess you're enough might be different than my enough. And, you know, I think that there are and have been studies of basic human needs. You know, so so we do know what the essentials are. And and but the problem is that we've been programmed also to think that there's never enough. You know, everyone is insatiable and has to have more and more and more. I don't think that's really human nature. I think that's what that's what advertising has has been indoctrinating people into because I think the the psychology, the positive psychology experiments show that people's, you know, community relationships, social capital are at least as important as as their material consumption. And a lot of that material consumption is really about status rather than than real need, you know, beyond a certain point. So there is a certain point of sufficiency. You know, you have to have enough food, enough shelter, you know, good health care, etcetera. But beyond that, it's really other things that that could be the main components of creating well-being and not just, you know, this keeping up with the Jonesies and trying to consume more and more because that and that actually has negative side effects. In fact, there's been some good studies that show that, you know, people who are more materialistically oriented are have higher rates of mental and physical illness as well, because they're they're spending all their time, you know, trying to trying to consume more to make more money, to to buy more to, you know, the sort of so there's a good book by Tim Kasser called The High Price of Materialism that that gets into the details of that psychological phenomenon. So we know that, you know, people will be better off, they'll be happier, they'll be more satisfied, they have more of their basic human needs fulfilled if they're, you know, if they're in this sufficiency mode rather than in this, I have to consume, I have to constantly increase, increase my consumption. So perhaps I wanted to to chat with you about some layers that you include in building a vision, which are, let's say the worldview, the build capital, the human capital, the social capital and the natural capital, because perhaps by translating it into these five layers, it might also become much more tangible and and perhaps each one of us can can see what's their place in the system, you know, or what's our role in this big picture because it can be well, nauseating when we think about such change. Yeah, well, that's that's one way of describing what the, you know, a positive future could look like is to say, well, we need, we need at least these four or five types of assets that are very different in their in their structure and their contribution to well-being. You know, so we need we need built infrastructure. We need how we need housing, we need transportation. We need all of that stuff, definitely, but we need a balance between that kind of infrastructure and our human infrastructure, individual well-being, our health, you know, our education, the things that affect people separately as individuals. But we also need our social capital, you know, or all of our institutions, our networks are both our formal and informal networks, our communities, our cultures, our governance systems, you know, everything that connects people together. I mean, the reasons that that humans have been so successful, I think as a species, is our ability to cooperate, you know, and to build these kinds of institutions and and to learn behavior that could be passed on to the to the next generation. And then we also need our natural capital, everything else in the world that we didn't have to produce, but that supports our well-being in so many complex ways. So just thinking of it in that way at least gets us to recognize that it's not all about the built capital, it's not all about, you know, me individually. You know, we've got to think about society, you got to think about the rest of the planet in this and it gets back to our initial conversation about looking at the whole system. And what are the what are the key pieces in that system? And how do they interact with each other to produce this sustainable well-being that we're really trying to produce? Yeah, yeah, I think I'm very glad to see that more and more studies are actually converging towards this, right? I mean, we've had limits to growth in the 70s that were more about the planetary or the natural capital and the and the link with the the built capital, then we're now having planetary boundaries and now we're having donut economics and now the latest report, the Earth for all report, which manages to well, bring the the historical legacy of limits to growth and and contextualize it with today's challenges, which today we were talking about inequality. We're talking about a number of elements. And I think it's very promising to to link these challenges together. Well, what were some learnings that you got from this report, for instance, and you collaborate, of course, with all of them? Yes, so I participated in that that Earth for all Club of Rome. I'm a member of the Club of Rome as well. And actually, Sandrine Dixon Decleave, who's the current co-president, wrote the form forward for the Addicted to Growth book. But I think that's that's it's really an amazing update, I guess, of the the ideas that were in the 1972 limits to growth with a new model that incorporates a lot of these additional elements and it has a well being indicator built into the model and looks at a couple of possible scenarios to sort of make the make the point that, yes, we can produce this this better, more sustainable future with the appropriate set of policy changes around the world. So it is, I think I think I think we're close to a tipping point. And I think that's the way these these kinds of systems change that, you know, things build up over time. It doesn't look like anything's happening. But eventually, eventually there is there is a massive change. And I think that also is consistent with the sort of addiction metaphor, you know, that people can stay in this addiction and begin to see the problems building and building, eventually say, OK, I got to do something. I have to do something about this. And and engage in, you know, whatever therapy is necessary. And even like I'm saying that once the therapy starts, there can be drastic improvement, we have to also be wary of, you know, of a relapse and going back. And I think some of what we're seeing in the world today are kind of relapses to older ways of dealing with the problem that hopefully will will overcome and continue or are positive, positive movement. Yeah, indeed, because now with the economic, the energy and climatic crisis, you know, things seems to there seems to be no more space for adjustment. We seem to be like a pressure cooker and there is no more room to to figure it out anymore. It's I don't know. As you say, at the one hand, it's a very positive tipping point. And on the other hand, you feel that these could escalate into or spiral into something more. So, yeah, I'm wondering how do you see all of the current challenges? Yeah, no, I think that's that's very much the way the way it is that we are in a multi crisis, you know, situation. But in a sense, that creates an opportunity to to make these these kinds of changes. Once once we recognize that, hey, you know, we are hitting rock bottom, you know, we've got we've got to try something different. And simply trying to get back on the band on the same treadmill that we were on before, you know, I think it's becoming more and more obvious to people that that's not the solution. So you've been part of, you know, I guess the planetary boundaries earth for all, many of the big consortia of scientists that are trying to push the agenda and are trying to figure out novel models of understanding or concepts that help us to, you know, tease our appetites, perhaps, to better indicate prosperity or how to change. What is the next big thing you think that? I don't know. It's hard to predict, but maybe societal therapy as a as a as an activity. You know, we need more more therapists and more engagement with with the broader society. But like I said, I think that the thing that's needed now is this shared vision. So how do we how do we create that and how do we get the the arts community? I guess more more involved in in trying to to take on that that challenge to create pictures of the kind of world that that we all want that can that can really motivate people. So hopefully that that might be the next big thing. So so Leonardo Caprio, if you're watching this, you know, follow me. Yeah, there is indeed, I mean, more and more also academic focus on societal tipping points. There are famous numbers about, you know, how much percent or what is the percent of society that needs to to change in order to to tip an entire society? I think this becomes more and more with climate activism to the forefront. And also in terms of arts, there there are more and more, well, activists that are at the same time filmmakers. And I say, for instance, we could do films that as right now we see films do not have cigarettes anymore. We could imagine films that do not have cars anymore or right, you know, no pump stations anymore or no these diesel engine cars that make a lot of noise and stuff like that. So what do you think is how could we trigger some some of these tipping points? Well, that's yeah, that's that's what I'm thinking about, you know, that if we had if we begin to paint that picture of the kind of world people want, you know, because simply saying we've got to stop climate change, you know, because it's going to destroy the planet. Yes, but how do you motivate enough people? How do you get enough people into the tipping point, you know, to get above the tipping point? I think you do that more effectively with a positive vision than with the then with the negative vision and getting the balance, you know, right between fear and hope, I think is really the is really the challenge. And we've certainly got the fear now. I think that's we got that kind of handle on that. We can do fear, but now we need to increase the hope part. And I think that's that's certainly it's become harder to do because we can so good with the fear, but but I think that's that's the missing element at the moment. Some of your inspirations into that. I think you talk about the transition movements. Yeah, it's talk about the ministry of the future as well. Are there some some utopic future scenarios that you think are very promising that we should put forward and and embrace them? Yeah, well, I like I like Kim Stanley Robinson's book, you know, the Ministry for the Future, because that does lay out at least a feasible, you know, scenario for how how this could all happen and result in a positive outcome. So I think we need more of that kind of that kind of literature, that kind of film, film work, etc. And I also like Andrew Sims' work, you know, on cancel the apocalypse is one of his books that basically says that all of these things that we're talking about in this quote unquote utopia, you know, are are already happening somewhere in the world. You know, so it's not like they're pie in the sky. This could never happen. It's it's just they're just not all happening in the same place at the same time, but we have a lot of feasibility tests, if you will, and models that we could that we could scale up with. So so that's the other thing, you know, and back to the addiction metaphor is, you know, it's not it's not like we don't know that people, you know, if they stop taking the drugs, we'll get we'll get better. We know that they can recover from from addictions. We know that we could produce this kind of world that we're talking about. It is feasible. It's just a question now of of of doing it. Perhaps to to conclude, is there something that? How could we synthesize what we've discussed in forms of a message that you would like to to bring forward to researchers or to policy makers that might hear us or, you know, engage citizens? Where are some of the key points that we have discussed? Well, there was a long list there. So understanding the system. Right. Understanding the system, understanding how we're how we're sort of locked in and we're not making progress as fast as we could. And understanding how what kind of therapy we might need to overcome this this lock in or addiction and getting engaged in thinking about what that how to build this shared vision, you know, we, you know, we have the technology these days to communicate with basically everyone on the planet in real time. I mean, that has never been the case in human history before. And you know, we've had a small scale society that have been actual democracies and fairly egalitarian and and, you know, that that have had common asset resources management in the Eleanor Ostrom sense. How to scale that up? Well, well, we we do have the technology that would allow that. We're not using it for that purpose. We're using it for the opposite kind of purposes these days. But we could. So I think that might be a challenge for the technically minded. How do we actually use the communication capabilities that we have to build this to build the shared vision, to build the movement that I think we need to overcome this addiction? Well, that's that's our focus from now onwards. Please try to, well, let's find ways to to get together as well to to build this this vision and actually implement it. So many thanks Bob for this discussion and for for your book, for your work. You've done so much. I don't know how much how much you can produce in one year, but it's always quite incredible. And also thanks to you. Thank you. Thanks to you, everyone, for listening, watching until the end. If you liked this episode, perhaps you might enjoy the other ones we did with Herman Daley, with Kate Geretwos, with Tim Jackson. So probably like minded people that that will say similar things in a different voice. So yeah, thanks again. And I'll see you all in two weeks for another discussion.