Elisabeth Oberzaucher
"The unlimited growth is due to the fact that fossil resources are exploited, that our oceans are overfished and at the same time become huge garbage dumps."
Living things differ from inanimate matter by the combination of the following properties: They can metabolize, reproduce and they can grow. So growth is a central characteristic of all living things, but at the same time it is the basis of the great problems of our time. Unlimited growth is due to the fact that fossil resources are exploited, that our oceans are overfished and at the same time become huge garbage dumps. But is unlimited growth a biological imperative, or can it be stopped?
The two strategies
In reproductive ecology, a distinction is made between two large groups of living beings, so-called r and K strategists. Strategists are those species that have a very large number of offspring. The r stands for reproduction, precisely because of the numerous offspring. Parental care for these strategists is rather limited, which also means that a large proportion of the offspring do not survive. Nevertheless, this reproductive strategy leads to exponential population growth. This works well as long as the resources are sufficient. If the population size surpasses the capacity of the ecosystem, a catastrophic collapse occurs. Overexploitation of resources causes the population to collapse far below the ecosystem's carrying capacity. The collapse is followed by exponential growth for r strategists. This creates an unstable pattern: unlimited growth, followed by catastrophic collapse - the latter not only reduces the population at worst, but can even lead to the extinction of the species. This reproductive strategy is mainly pursued by small, short-lived creatures.
The larger and longer-lived a living being, the more likely it is to pursue the ecological strategy of a K strategist. K strategists have few offspring who are well cared for and who largely survive. K strategists reduce their reproductive rate when the population density reaches the so-called carrying capacity, i.e. the number of individuals that can exist in a living space without making excessive use of the available resources and thus causing lasting damage. The K stands for the carrying capacity.
Science has not yet answered clearly where people can be classified in this respect. From a purely biological and reproductive-ecological point of view, we are more likely to be regarded as K strategists, but this is offset by a development in resource consumption that would correspond to r strategists.
Technological evolution factor
The exponential development of our resource consumption is not due to population growth, as is the case with other animals, but to technological evolution, which on the one hand opens up many possibilities for us but on the other hand also means that we are rapidly approaching the carrying capacity of the earth. Like r-strategists, we shoot at breathtaking speed not only at our mischief, but even beyond. If we fail to slow down this development, a catastrophic outcome seems inevitable.
Nevertheless, the fact that we are more of a K strategist from a biological point of view can make us optimistic. Counteracting biologically based behavioral tendencies requires special efforts, as these are very deeply rooted and therefore a behavioral change can only be brought about through consistent countermeasures at the conscious level. However, since our r-strategist tendencies can be found on a culturally acquired level, a change in our behavior should be easier to achieve.
System: restart
But this requires a basic one Restructuring our system, The entire world economy is geared towards growth. The system can only be kept running by increasing consumption, growing profits and the associated growing consumption of resources. This system can only be partially broken by the individual.
An important step to escape from the growth trap can also be found on the individual level: It is based on a fundamental change in our value system. Bobby Low, an American psychologist, sees great potential in a reassessment of property and behavior. She looks at our behavior from the perspective of partner selection and the partner market, and sees this as one reason for our wasteful use of the earth's resources. Status symbols play an important role in the choice of partner, since in our evolutionary history they were important signals for the ability to provide the family with vital resources. In today's technological world, the signal value of status symbols is no longer so reliable, and moreover the obsession with the accumulation of these is partly responsible for the unsustainable lifestyle.
This is where a starting point for possible interventions can be found: If the wasteful use of resources is no longer seen as something worth striving for, there is automatically a decrease in senseless consumption. If, on the other hand, the conscious use of resources is what counts as a desirable property, then something can really be done. Low postulates that we will behave more sustainably if it makes us more desirable on the partner market. Interventions that seem strange in part follow from this: For example, she suggests that sustainably produced food is sold at very high prices in order to make it a status symbol. If something is established as a status symbol, it will automatically be desirable.
Appropriate developments can already be observed: The attention that is devoted to the origin and preparation of food in certain circles today shows how a lifestyle can be elevated to a status symbol. The success story of certain electric cars can also be assigned to their reliable function as a status symbol. Most of these developments, however, are still consumer-oriented, which, while redirecting growth in certain directions, does not reduce it sufficiently.
If we want to limit growth, we need a combination of systemic-level interventions with individual behavior changes. Only a combination of the two can result in growth being reduced to a level that does not exceed the capacity of our planet.
The Friday demonstrations for the planet give hope that awareness of the need for change increases. Actions may soon follow to set gentle limits to growth as quickly as possible before a brutal breakdown in carrying capacity leads to a dramatic catastrophe.
INFO: The tragedy of the commons
When resources are public, it is usually not without problems. If there is no set of rules for the use of these resources, and checking whether these rules are also complied with can quickly lead to an exhaustion of these resources. Strictly speaking, what leads to overfishing of the oceans and wasteful use of fossil resources such as oil and gas is the absence of effective rules.
In ecology, this phenomenon is called the Tragedy of the commons or the Tragedy of the commons designated. The term originally goes back to William Forster Lloyd, who considered population development. In the Middle Ages, commons, such as shared pastures, were designated as commons. The concept found its way into ecology Garrett hardin 1968 entrance.
According to Hardin, once a resource becomes fully available to everyone, everyone will try to make as much profit as possible for themselves. This works as long as the resources are not exhausted. However, as soon as the number of users or the use of the resource increases beyond a certain level, the tragedy of the commons comes into force: Individuals continue to try to maximize their own earnings. Therefore, the resources are no longer sufficient for everyone. The cost of overexploitation falls on the entire community. The immediate profit is considerably higher for the individual, but the long-term costs must be borne by everyone. Through short-sighted profit maximization, everyone contributes to both their own and the ruin of the community. "Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all," says Hardin's conclusion, for example, that you take a community pasture. The farmers will let as many cows graze as possible, which will result in the pasture being overgrazed, i.e. the sward will be damaged, and the growth in the pasture will suffer as a result. There are usually rules and regulations for shared resources that ensure that they are not overexploited. However, the larger the systems that share the resources, the more difficult these control mechanisms become. Global challenges need different solutions than those that worked in medieval systems. Innovations on the systemic as well as on the individual level are required here.
Photo / Video: Shutterstock.
