*Gaya Herrington* # Progressive Summary # Definitions # Chapter Notes ## 5. The Sustainability Revolution: Humanity’s Dying and Emerging New Narratives > As Jared Diamond (2011) describes in the book Collapse, throughout history, the wealthy have tried to use their power to protect themselves in case of a societal collapse. All they ever bought was the privilege to perish last. ## 6. Prosperity over Growth: From “Never Enough” to “Enough for Each” ## 7. Elements of a Dynamic Global Equilibrium > Eisler describes the partnership model, with its emphasis on taking care of one another and nonviolent solutions, as based on female values. However, she is careful to point out that this model is not “matriarchal”; that would imply a woman-over-man power structure which would simply be the same domination model executed in reverse. At the structure level of the systems iceberg, a woman-over-man hierarchy differs from a patriarchal one. But at the vision and mental model level, the two approaches are the same because they’re both based on the notion that gender difference constitutes a qualitative difference, and envision a society that grants different rights and opportunities accordingly. This is, I believe, why people steeped in a domination mindset call feminism man-hating or accuse gay rights activists of asking for special treatment, or use terms like “reverse racism”. In a domination mindset, empowering one group of people can only happen by disempowering another. But I have never read a feminist argue that the vast overrepresentation of men in crime statistics illustrates that they are too emotional to hold leadership positions, and these, therefore, should be left to women who, because of their more abundant genetic information, higher brain-to-body-size ratio, and higher IQ test scores, clearly are the more intelligent sex. I have not heard any LTBTQ activists narrate how the chaos in society can be ended by returning to the natural two-tier order of, say, “breeders and their leaders”. Anti-racists are not using the theory of evolution to argue for a society with “the first people” at the top and the “derivative races”, those ethnicities who historically developed later, below them. They all could, in the sense that such arguments would be just as arbitrary and illogical as the arguments for white male superiority and heteronormativity. But to me, it’s quite clear that social activists are not arguing for a reversal of social hierarchies; they paint a world in which these hierarchies are dissolved altogether. In this sense, I interpret their work as advocating for the partnership model, or at least something closer to it. > In the long run, domination societies are doomed to fail (Eisler 2008). The domination narrative systemically undervalues anything stereotypically associated with femininity, which leads to structural under-investments in vital parts of society such as education, health, and environmental protection. This makes these societies not self-sustaining, meaning they can only survive for as long as they can expand or exploit land, natural resources, and other societies. Thus, societies with a strong domination model cultivated a drive for expansionary growth. The violence in the domination model then is not just necessary to maintain the strict hierarchies. Another reason that violence was a prominent part of the common narrative about who the people (especially men) were is that this society constantly needed to expand its territories. Additionally, the ever-increasing inequalities and rigid organizational structure dampen a society’s ability to adapt to environmental changes (either natural or as a result of the society’s neglect). Eisler’s work, therefore, puts our addiction to growth in a historical perspective. It explains our collective difficulty in tackling climate change. Our global society has been crippled by inequality so much that we cannot come together even to save our own world as we know it. And these inequalities, Eisler’s work tells us, are linked to our quest for expansionary growth, precisely as the CoR already intuited in the 1970s. Contrary to what we have been told, we do not require more growth to reduce inequalities. Quite the opposite. The relentless pursuit of growth and inequality both spring from the same mindset. They will always go hand in hand. > Partnership societies, on the other hand, were sustainable in the sense that they could be maintained with their modus operandi (one can imagine a lot of energy is saved by not oppressing one another). Overall, the partnership model leads to more resilient and prosperous societies than the domination model. The key link between environmental sustainability and the social aspect of equality is also why organizations such as Greenpeace, UNEP, and many more often also address gender and other social aspects. They know by now that to achieve their environmental goals, equality is not a “nice to have” but a condicio sine qua non. Eisler’s work also accords with a wealth of studies on the impacts of economic (in)equality, some of which were mentioned in the previous chapter. As Danny Dorling puts it in his 2017 book The Equality Effect, it “is almost magical” how in more equal countries, human beings are happier and healthier—even those at the top. However, the partnership model does have one Achilles’ heel. When you prioritize caring for one another and don’t identify much as a “warrior race”, you don’t divert many resources towards combat training, weapon creation, or other defensive capabilities. This is fine if everyone practices the partnership model. But you only need one domination tribe or society nearby to make things ugly. > No one culture is on either end of the spectrum, and our society shows traits of both the partnership and domination models. But if we are to avoid collapse, I would say we need to learn from history and take it way down on the domination part. There are clear signs of ranking man over woman, man over man, one race over another, and religion over religion in the world. They are so ubiquitous and obvious that it feels redundant to elaborate much. I could double my reference list by starting with the global gender indices indicating that in no country women and men are treated fully equally. Maybe I could follow with the fact that men intentionally kill about 87,000 women every year for gender-related reasons. Bring in issues like the racial wealth gap, and how it is illegal to be LGBTQ in 70 countries, with 12 of those carrying the death penalty for this. Then, I would still be leaving out the more extreme examples of modern-day “detention camps” for ethnic and religious minorities that include torture in their routines and sometimes even organ harvesting, and mass rapes committed as a weapon of war, including by Russian soldiers during the invasion of Ukraine which at the time of writing is still going on. Or, I could keep it focused on the US and elaborate on the fact that murder is the third-leading cause of death for Native American women, discuss racial and ableist disparities in the prison system and policing, add a BLM example, and maybe a #MeToo reference. Then, I could capitalize on the most recent mass shooting, of which we have a guaranteed supply averaging more than one per day, to point out that 98% of those are perpetuated by men (who more often than not have a history of domestic violence), while the majority of the victims are women and children. Perhaps I would top it off with a personal anecdote of how my midwife asked me, as part of the intake routine, if my husband ever hit me because one in five pregnant American women experiences domestic violence. But do I really have to? > The sustainability revolution requires a mindset shift towards the partnership narrative and mental model. For one reason, history and the latest research show that a partnership-based global society would make most, if not all, people happier than they are today. Growing this happiness forever would not be possible, but we certainly could increase the life satisfaction of people living today. Even if we didn’t care about the next generation or were sure that technology was going to swoop in and save us from collapse, I think greater happiness is a good reason in and of itself to switch to the partnership narrative. Second, as I have laid out in the previous section on CT versus BAU2 likelihood, I don’t see any good reasons our global community today can be expected to be an exception to the rule that a domination mindset produces unsustainable societies. This is the most important reason to switch the narrative; it is not working for us and expansion into other planetoids is not really an option. Of course, some billionaires seem to think it is, and I thank them for providing me with a contemporary example of the growth mindset. > It is notable that the domination model, in general, has been more common in places where resources are scarce. This aligns with my conclusion that we are at a now-or-never moment to make a narrative and paradigm shift. If we do not manage to move towards a partnership mindset today, this is less likely to happen two decades from now, once unpolluted resources have become scarcer as a result of more depletion and possibly ecosystem collapse. Indeed, in places more vulnerable to climate change, a rise in gender-based violence towards women, girls, and sexual and gender minorities can already be observed (van Daalen et al. 2022). > I don’t wonder how my baby will ever repay me for the care I provide for her because it’s my pleasure to give (if you think that satisfaction arises only from our shared DNA, try telling that to an adoptive parent and see what happens). My daughter does not wonder about it either. When she is not focused on her immediate needs, she is mostly busy with reaching, building strength, and discovering her voice. This makes sense for her level of development. It does not make her inferior to me. She is simply at a stage where the mindset of “look what I can do” is natural. I am at the grown-up stage, where I get to ask “what can I do for you?” The love of a parent for her child is an easy example (although there are too many heartbreaking stories of child abuse and neglect by parents for it to be a trivial one). But it illustrates my point that, for a mature mind, giving is more satisfying than taking. Generosity is a natural privilege. Being responsible, rather than dominating, is true mastery. ### Doughnut Economics > In this way, the deceivingly simple image of a doughnut introduces the concept of “enough” into our economics. The inner boundary of our human needs represents this concept in the sense of “sufficient”. We should aim to have no one fall below this boundary. The outer boundary of planetary limits represents the other interpretation of “enough” as in “no more”. We cannot go beyond what our natural environment can carry for us in terms of pollution and extraction. > If you’re the spiritual type, you might call these boundaries sacred. Something sacred to us has inherent value; it can never be expressed in numbers. We should honor the boundaries and never cross them, for they hold the sacred space of life. If you’re more of the exact type, you could call these boundaries humanity’s axioms: Our global society rests on them, and it is illogical to act as if they do not exist because then the entire system comes crashing down. The sweet spot is inside the doughnut: the space of our well-being, that is, where our needs and those of other life forms are met, and we live with the peace of mind knowing that they will continue to be met. # Quotes > “If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire” (Monbiot 2011). # References