Changing the question.

• Author: Reksten, Nick
• Position: Environmental protection in the society - Viewpoint essay

The possibility of massive and irreversible ecological disaster looms ever larger over society. An increasing number of studies suggest that the threat to ecosystems all over the planet is worse than previously thought. Depletion of fisheries, deforestation, desertification, and, of course, global warming threaten massive species extinction and the lives and livelihoods of humans worldwide. This comes at a time when the roughly five billion residents of the developing world have an increasing desire to live in the state of material wealth that can be found in only a handful of wealthy countries.

How can wealthy societies expect people to change the way in which they live on such a massive scale? Certainly voluntary lifestyle changes will not produce the massive energy use reduction that is needed to avert disaster. How can a society ask individuals to give up a significant portion of their income growth in the name of the environment?

Just as pressing is the question of how the five billion residents of developing countries, many of whom live in the direst poverty, can be asked to sacrifice income to protect the environment? There are many interesting and creative ideas put forth to assist humankind in its attempt to reduce its impact on the environment. But there is a critical disconnect between these incredible changes and the willingness of societies to implement them.

When a situation is seemingly impossible, one must look at its most basic assumptions and see how they may be altered to accommodate the new reality. Though much overused today, the term "paradigm shift" is best suited to describe the type of change that is necessary. This is a call for changing the most fundamental question of economic thought. Instead of asking "How can our society acquire more income?" we should be asking "How can our society become a happier one?" This can revolutionize how we as a society think about economic policy and lead to the subsequent reduction in energy use that is needed to avert ecological collapse.

It is no wonder that our society and mainstream economists equate higher incomes with increased happiness. For most of human history, this has indeed been the case. Offer a family at near-starvation levels of subsistence a higher income in exchange for more time spent laboring, and they will generally be happier despite the sacrifice of leisure time. Even when slightly more secure in terms of a food supply, the existence of some disposable...