Book review: Five Insights for Avoiding Global Collapse

An acquaintance forwarded a link to an online copy of Gaya Herrington’s book, Five Insights for Avoiding Global Collapse: What a 50-year-old model of the world taught me about a way forward for us today (2022), with an email telling me that if I don’t know about her, I need to, and suggesting that I read her book.

I skimmed the introduction, and could easily see that the book is one that falls easily into the following categories:

1. Human supremacist

2. Energy and materials blind

3. A complete fantasy

The acquaintance said, “Don’t judge a book by its opening paragraphs.”

So, on a rainy, windy afternoon, I dug a little deeper. I read most of the book, skimming a bit here and there, and by the end determined that, unfortunately, my initial assessment was correct. 

Priorities

One of the things I do when reading a book like this—a book about collapse or environmental crises or civilization—is a word search. This helps me understand what the author prioritizes. Having a PDF of the book is convenient for this. 

The words I chose to search for are: “ecology”, “restore”, “restoration”, “overpopulation”, “natural capital”, and “renewable”. The first four are critical topics when discussing collapse, I hope that is obvious to the reader. The last two are common terms used by what I call the human supremacists and the bright greens. 

Human supremacists view humans as more important than non-human species and ecosystems. They often view nature as capital, in the sense of something that provides value or benefit to its owners, where we humans are considered nature’s “owners.” “Natural capital” means “the value of the Earth's natural resources”—that is, “the resources that humans need to survive and produce more resources.” Human supremacists see nature as here for us, and this is often expressed through the view of nature as capital. 

Bright Greens believe that “environmental problems exist and are serious, but green technology and design, along with ethical consumerism, will allow a modern, high-energy lifestyle to continue indefinitely. The bright greens’ attitude amounts to ‘It’s less about nature and more about us.’” [Quote from Bright Green Lies by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert.] I suspected from reading the introduction that Herrington is a bright green, and so the search for “renewable” would be an indicator to confirm this (or not). 

Here’s what I found.

For “ecology” I found three occurrences: Yale’s Journal of Industrial Ecology, “Ecology for bankers,” and one occurrence referring to the field of ecology. 

For “restore” and “restoration” I found a total of seven matches. For “restore,” all three matches referred to humans (in the sense of “restorative”), rather than restoring ecosystems. Of the four matches for “restoration,” only one referred obliquely to ecosystem restoration projects, and the other three related only to humans in the same sense as the author used “restore.” 

For “overpopulation” I found zero occurrences. Population is discussed in the book related to the author’s work running an updated World3 model (from Limits to Growth), but is not discussed at all as a contributing factor to collapse outside of that context.

For “natural capital” I found 65 matches. I also found a similar number of matches for “natural resources.” The high use of these terms indicates that the author sees nature as capital, as resources, for human benefit and value, and does not view the natural world as having its own agency or inherent value that does not relate at all to human beings.

Finally, for “renewable,” I found 28 matches, indicating that the author is very likely a bright green.

An important word in this book is “well-being.” This is one of the main topics of the book, with well-being at work being the focus of a large section of the book. I noted that the well-being of the natural world is referred to only vaguely, and primarily in the context that the well-being of the natural world benefits humans. The author never refers to the well-being of the natural world for the sake of itself. 

The author’s work

Given that work is an important focus for the author, I decided to look at the company she works for, Schneider Electric. Based on their website, this company makes data center management systems, automation and energy management software for industrial facilities, and home electrification systems, including solar inverters, battery systems, EV chargers, software apps, and so on. 

The author writes that Schneider Electric “held the title of the most sustainable corporation in the world in 2021.” I wondered, what does it mean to be “the most sustainable corporation in the world.” I clicked on the “Sustainability” section of their website to investigate further. They have a “net-zero commitment” and a “biodiversity pledge.”  

“Net-zero” means negating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions “by reducing emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.” [Oxford English Dictionary Google result.] There is a joke amongst climate change realists that “net-zero” really means “not zero” thanks to technologies that will supposedly “offset” remaining GHG emissions after reducing emissions being mostly fantasy in practice, and all fantasy at scale. Most climate change realists understand that net-zero is a boondoggle. I happen to agree. But let’s take a closer look at their “net-zero commitment” to see how Schneider Electric will go net-zero.

According to their net-zero commitment documents, net-zero means “balancing any remaining residual emissions through carbon removal credits.” They further state that they are striving to be “carbon neutral” by using CO2 offsets and “CO2 removals” that entail “removing carbon from the atmosphere.” “CO2 removals” refers to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies which are used primarily at small scales to capture carbon for use by the oil industry to make extracting more oil more efficient and less expensive. There are no CCS technologies which can yet store carbon long term at scale. 

Net-zero is a boondoggle. CCS is a boondoggle. Carbon offsets are a boondoggle. I conclude that Schneider Electric’s net-zero plans are bullshit. 

Let’s now take a look at Schneider Electric’s “biodiversity pledge.” This pledge states that “Over two-thirds of our impact on biodiversity is attributed to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their contribution to climate change. Consequently, our primary focus in stakeholder engagement is on initially tackling GHG emissions within our supply chain.” 

This is interesting because the vast majority of biodiversity loss is due to habitat loss from industrial activities like mining, agriculture, draining wetlands, and building infrastructure. Climate change will of course have a bigger impact in the future but right now, it’s a tiny impact in comparison to the non-GHG emissions footprint of human industrial society. So how could two-thirds of this company’s impact be from greenhouse gases? This is an unanswered question, as the company does not elaborate on how they measure their “impact on biodiversity.” I guess we’ll have to take their word for it.

Their biodiversity pledge also includes discussion of “green materials.” What are “green materials”? The company writes:

---

In 2021, the scope of green materials focused on 3 types of commodities covering around a third of purchased materials in volume:

• Thermoplastics are qualified as “green” when the supplier provides evidence of a minimum recycled content, biobased content (the minimum threshold depends on whether the compound is halogenated or not) or is using a green flame retardant.

• Steel (direct purchases). Steel is qualified as “green” when the supplier provides evidence that the mill of origin is an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) or has a Green certificate such as the ones delivered by Responsible Steel.

• Aluminum (direct purchases). Aluminum is qualified as “green” when the supplier provides evidence that the product carbon footprint is below 8 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of aluminum, is using a minimum of 90% of recycled content in its product or that the mill of origin has a Green certificate.

---

This use of the word “green” is typical of corporations today. They have made up metrics by which they can call their products or supply chain materials “green” that have very little or nothing to do with actually protecting the environment. Thermoplastics are plastic whether they are made with recycled content or bio-plastics; they are still toxic to the environment. We know that less than 9% of plastic is recycled, and we know that recycling is one of the primary creators of microplastics in the environment, along with car tires and brakes, and clothes. Calling plastic “green” because of a few made up metrics that are convenient for the company doesn’t make plastic better in any way.

Steel is usually made with a combination of recycled steel and virgin materials (iron ore, nickel, and coal). Because steel, along with concrete, is what builds the modern world, the vast majority of material mined globally is iron ore—93%—with about 2.6 billion tons of iron ore mined each year.  About 70% of nickel mined each year is used for steel, 2 million tons of it a year. And about 7.2 billion tons of coal is mined each year, including 580 million tons here in the U.S. from 560 different mines.  About 2 billion tons of steel is produced globally each year, requiring about 1.7 billion tons of coal.

An electric arc furnace can, in principle, be powered by so-called “renewable” sources of energy (e.g. solar and wind) but the furnace must run continuously for hours if not days or weeks on end in order to supply the extremely high heat required to melt and process these materials into steel. Intermittent sources of electricity do not work for these industrial uses. Given that the primary source of energy to produce electricity on most countries’ grid systems is still coal and gas, it is likely that most steel that’s made with electric arc furnaces (instead of traditional coal-powered smelters) relies on power generated by fossil fuels. Finally, only about 28% of steel made globally uses electric arc furnaces, so most of it is made using coal-powered smelters. 

Aluminum is highly-recyclable, and recycling rates typically range from 65-85%. However, as with all materials, growth guarantees that new virgin materials are always required, and as with other materials, like steel and plastic, this requires mining and extraction. The growth rate of the aluminum industry is projected at 40% by 2030, so a whole lot of new materials will be required to create all that aluminum. 

I conclude that while efforts to use electricity and recycled materials to make their products might be better than not doing that, these efforts will have a negligible impact on biodiversity loss or global greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, because of the high energy requirements to recycle materials, and the toxic impacts of the chemical and waste pollution generated by recycling, it could be that using recycled materials actually worsens biodiversity loss. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to get comprehensive data on biodiversity loss from individual actors; it’s difficult sometimes to get any data about this. 

Any claims that Schneider Electric is having a positive impact on biodiversity from its practices should be considered highly suspect. And given the kinds of products they make—that is, products that have a high impact on the natural environment from mining, processing, manufacturing, transportation, etc.—using recycled materials will have a negligible effect on their overall impact on biodiversity.

As I expected, the claim that Schneider Electric is one of the most sustainable corporations in the world doesn’t really mean much. These kinds of programs, and the accolades and awards that go with them, are simply a way for corporations to invest in building their customer base. If they know their customers care about sustainability then corporations make up mostly meaningless metrics by which to measure their sustainability and then meet those goals, the ones they just made up.

Another factor in sustainability is that “sustainability” in the corporate world means “the ability to sustain the business.” Whether the business itself is destroying the environment is largely irrelevant in the short-term if the company continues doing business, making a profit, and meeting the expectations of share-holders. 

The word “sustainable” outside of “continuing the business” has been co-opted and corrupted by corporations such that it is almost meaningless these days, another reason why Schneider Electric’s sustainability award doesn’t mean all that much.

The author’s book calls for a “sustainable revolution,” but now that we understand a bit more about what “sustainability” means for corporations, and specifically her own work place, I began the book not particularly hopeful about what this will turn out to mean. Unfortunately, my concerns were confirmed.

Now let’s dig into the book.

Limits to Growth

The book is structured around the author’s investigation into how empirical data from 2022 aligns with the projections from various studies of the Limits to Growth World3 model. Originally published in 1972 by Donella and Dennis Meadows, the Meadows updated and published results again in 1992, and again in 2004. Since then multiple researchers have updated and published results using World3, some with new scenarios added, including the 2004 publication of “business-as-usual 2” (BAU2) adding to the original 1972 “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario. BAU2 delays the onset of collapse, with pollution playing a bigger tole than it did in the original BAU. The “comprehensive technology” (CT) scenario is also important one because it represents the techno-utopian view of many bright greens, those who believe technology will save the day.

One critical thing to note about World3 models is they are projecting human population and impacts from human civilization; for instance, food production, industrial output, and non-renewable “natural resources” (e.g. iron ore, nickel, and coal for steel). World3 does not model in any way the impacts of humans industrial society on the non-human world except through the proxy of pollution, and this does not account for habitat loss, biodiversity loss, species loss, and overall plummeting wildlife numbers. Nor does the model account for how these losses might create their own tipping points for ecosystem health overall, or for human population and flourishing.

Herrington found that the BAU2 and CT scenarios are the closest fit to today’s situation, given the data she fed into her updated World3 model software. She outlines her choices in the data she chose to add, and I won’t detail those here, nor my critique of some of her choices, as that would get too far into the weeds and I want to focus on the discussion that follows her results.

Her conclusions are summarized well by the following paragraph from Chapter 3:

---

The World3 model signals that continuing business as usual, i.e., pursuing continuous growth, is not possible. Even when paired with unprecedented technological development and adoption (as in CT), business as usual would inevitably lead to declines in industrial capital, agricultural output, and welfare levels within this century. According to the World3 dynamics then, our choice is to either choose our own limits or have them forced upon us. Although economic growth is not an explicit variable in World3, it is spurred by industrial, agricultural, and population growth. A steep decline in those variables would inevitably also lead to an economic collapse. The findings of this research put the recent, relatively low economic outlook predictions and talks from organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund about a “pronounced slowdown” of global growth in perspective.

---

The rest of the book is structured around the author’s perspectives on growth, sustainability, and human well-being. She writes: “A society shaped around a narrative that ascribes purpose to the fostering of human and ecological well-being can still allow for growth but only to the extent that it leaves us happier, as our definitions of success and prosperity will have matured far beyond the mere avoidance of collapse.” Hmmm. Notice the human supremacy in this statement. Growth is allowed if it leaves us happier. What about the happiness of the wild beings impacted by our growth? Apparently that doesn’t matter one bit, despite vague and meaningless allusions to “ecological well-being,” which is included in order to be of service to… you guessed it… us humans.

Disagreements

After covering her work with World3 in Chapters 3 and 4 in-depth, the author then introduces her call for a “sustainability revolution” in Chapter 5, writing:

---

In short, calling for realignment with SW [the “stabilized world” scenario from Limits to Growth] is calling for a sustainability revolution. Advocating for a revolution is not a call to take up arms. We have had many peaceful revolutions before, most notably the agricultural and industrial ones. It is, however, a call for defiance; an invitation to re-examine old mindsets and question existing power structures.

---

It’s interesting that the author never defines sustainability or well-being, despite these concepts being a major focus of the book. This lack of definitions is one of the minor quibbles I have of the book. But let’s get to the major issues with the book, which are primarily in Chapters 6 and 7, titled “Prosperity over Growth: From ‘Never Enough’ to ‘Enough for Each’” and “Elements of a Dynamic Global Equilibrium,” respectively.

One of my major points of disagreements with the original authors of Limits to Growth, and with Herrington, is expressed with the following from the Meadows’ 2004 update, Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update:

---

In most World3 runs, including many we have not shown here, the world system does not totally run out of land or food or resources or pollution absorption capability. What it runs out of is its ability to cope.

---

Herrington expands on this:

---

This is a key but often missed aspect of The Limits to Growth: the ‘s” in “limits”. Plural. Humanity can innovate itself out of one limit, but like systems thinking teaches us, this will come with side effects that are bound to trigger a new limit sooner or later. For example, the reason why fossil fuels turned out to be more abundant than feared in the 1970s is indeed that we innovated ourselves, to some extent at least, out of this limit by developing technologies that made it possible to extract deeper and more dispersed resources. But soon a new limit emerged, in this case the pollution that results from extracting and using fossil fuels.

---

First, and most important, these quotes illustrate the human supremacy baked in to both the original Limits to Growth and Herrington’s work. “The world system does not totally run out of land or food or resources …” for humans. Where is the measure and representation of ecosystems being destroyed, and thus the non-human species who are therefore running out of land and food and resources if they are not outright killed? Do we really want to think of the Earth as a big sponge absorbing more and more pollution until we humans can no longer cope? What about the non-human species who are likely killed or displaced by our pollution long before it begins to impact us, since we try to put our pollution in places where it will harm wildlife and ecosystems rather than harm humans directly (although there is plenty of that too)? Where is the understanding that we humans cannot exist on Earth without intact and flourishing ecosystems? Sure we can fake it for a while, but eventually it will bite us, probably before we “run out of land or food or resources.” Where is the recognition that our relationship with nature, our place in nature, relies on a fully functioning web of life? Nowhere to be found.

Second, it is simply a myth that we can innovate ourselves out of a limit of any kind (or ever have). To use Herrington’s example, we did not innovate our way out of the energy limit. We simply used technology to delay the limit a bit. That is not at all the same thing. In so doing, we used the additional surplus energy to grow—population, consumption, infrastructure—all of which will now require far more energy to maintain going forward. Along with that problem, we also destroyed more ecosystems and nature to get that energy and then destroyed even more ecosystems and nature using that energy for more population, consumption, and infrastructure. 

As Herrington observes, by using that additional energy we also significantly worsened the pollution problem. One big difference between the BAU and BAU2 scenarios is that in BAU2, “pollution levels literally go off the scale.” She also describes how she used CO2 levels as a proxy for pollution, even though, as she later admits, this is a huge weakness in her model. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are just part of the catastrophic levels of pollution humanity has created and emits daily into the natural world. 

As the title of Chapter 6 suggests, what humans need versus what we want (and often try to get) is different. The author argues, as many before her have, that after a certain level of income, happiness levels off. Once our basic needs are met, happiness is met primarily through non-economic-growth means—such as learning new things, being socially active, being healthy. Corporations have learned how to capitalize on these well-being drivers, however; they know how to manipulate us into believing that their product will help to meet a core human need. As the author writes: “Create an association in people’s minds between a product and a need like safety, love, and esteem, and a continuous desire for those products will perpetuate.”

Chapter 7 is about how it’s important that we embrace the “enough for each” perspective—that is, learning to want less after our basic needs are met—and that corporations to do the same by shifting from a domination model to a partnership model. And this is where the book completely falls apart.

Surprisingly superficial and hopelessly naive

Chapter 7 is long and I won’t critique the entire chapter here because this book review is already far too long. I will select a few major points of disagreement I have with the author, and some areas where I think the book falls terribly short.

Work

Much of this chapter is centered around our roles in society and particularly, the way we work. Throughout the book, the author has emphasized how we need a “sustainability revolution” and how the book is a “manifesto for immediate global systemic changes,” and yet the author never once questions the fundamental idea of what work means in the context of an employee working for an employer, a corporation of some kind. 

I would have thought that a manifesto for revolutionary change in the global system would have at least considered this question, and yet nowhere does the author do so. Instead, her treatise on work—how we work and why we work—asks only that employers shift their goals to sustainability and asks them to “empower employees” and care about employees’ well-being. Some examples of this include allowing employees more flexibility to work from home and giving them time to take naps. I’m not joking.

So let’s step back for a moment and ask the question ourselves, since the author has chosen not to: what does work actually mean? As she cites in her book, a quarter of people suspect their work is useless. In other words, many people believe they are doing “bullshit jobs” as author David Graeber describes them. My follow up question is, are there any jobs that are not bullshit jobs?

Can you think of a single company that is “bettering” the world? Apple certainly isn’t. Carnival Cruise Ships certainly isn’t. Bobbleheads.com certainly isn’t. 

Is ExxonMobil Corporation? Some might say, “What? They are among the worst!” Others might say “Well, humanity needs oil, so they are providing a product that benefits humanity. People would die without oil.” 

What about Tesla? Some might say, “Yes, they are making electric vehicles (EVs)! Humans need cars.” But do we? And are you sure EVs are better than gas cars? 

Okay what about a company that supplies food. Surely those companies are bettering the world—after all, we all need food. But most of our food is grown with industrial agriculture, with extraordinary amounts of animal cruelty, human exploitation, and environmental destruction. For at least half the world’s population, 9 out of every 10 calories come from fossil fuels. That is, the food we eat would be impossible to grow without massive amounts of fertilizer made from fossil fuels. So, are food companies really “bettering” the world? 

The author spends many pages discussing ways corporations can treat workers better; many pages discussing how we can make societies more equal, both in social terms (e.g. sex equality, race equality) as well as in financial terms, by distributing wealth and taxing the super rich. An example of a specific company she mentions working to create “genuine betterment of the world” is Unilever. Yet Unilever seems to me like a great example of bullshit jobs.

Unilever makes many completely useless products. They own Breyer’s and Ben & Jerry’s, both makers of ice cream. Useless, or worse than useless, because ice cream (at scale) requires the exploitation of dairy cattle, who are (unfortunately) incredibly bad for the planet; sugar, also incredibly bad for the planet and for humans; and freezers, also incredibly bad for the planet. Unilever owns Vaseline, the makers of petroleum jelly. Bettering the planet? I think not. The key is in the name "petroleum."  I could go on but it would get boring to repeat myself.

The author describes how companies can be better by sharing their technology and information, and uses Toyota and Tesla as examples, saying “[R]eleasing patents can help jump-start the electric vehicle market” and “It is not hypocritical to make profits while on a mission.”

And with this the author makes clear that she thinks EVs are “bettering” the planet. But are they? 

Not only are EVs not part of a “sustainable revolution,” they are hugely damaging to the planet, and to humans specifically. EVs are four to six times more materials intensive to make than gas cars (to be clear, I’m not arguing for gas cars here!). The materials required to make EVs must be mined from the ground, and the ore grade of many of those materials is declining rapidly (for example, copper). Some materials, like cobalt, for EVs are mined by what are essentially human slaves. Almost all materials required for all cars are processed and refined in ways that create massive amounts of pollution. Driving EVs, which are heavier than gas cars, creates more wear and tear on tires and brakes, generating far more microplastic pollution. EV batteries are difficult to recycle and of the 5% that are, only some portion of materials can be extracted, and the recycling process is energy intensive and incredibly polluting.

This doesn’t sound like part of a “sustainability revolution” to me. How does releasing patents on EV technology help in bettering the planet again? Maybe Toyota and Tesla let their employees take a lot of naps! (Sorry for the blatant sarcasm but I couldn’t help myself.) I’d wager just about every single company in existence damages the planet more than betters the planet, no matter how hard they try.

A truly sustainable revolution (with nature in mind) would be to eliminate corporations, and eliminate what we think of as “work.” Because as it should be clear by now, most of what we think of as work in this modern world means spending one’s time making a corporation that is helping to destroy the planet more successful.

The author’s discussion of EVs and repeated mention of so-called renewables also betrays that she is energy and materials blind. There is ample research to show that replacing our fossil fuel-based economy with renewables and EVs would require copious amounts of energy and more of some materials than we know exist on Earth. There is research showing that most renewables add to the energy we use, rather than replacing fossil fuels, and that the growth in renewables can’t even keep up with the growth in energy demand. Most people are both energy and materials blind, but this blindness is inexcusable in a book about how to avoid global collapse.

How could someone aware of the human rights violations and devastating ecological consequences of mining spend whole sections of a book on “How we work” and “Why we work” without mentioning them? How could someone write a whole section about work and not address that for many hundreds of millions of people, “work” is what happens when companies in collaboration with governments throw them off their land, out of rewarding subsistence lifestyles, and into slave-like labor for mining companies to mine materials for EVs, renewables, and other technologies, all technologies she champions in this book? How could she write about sex equality at work without writing about the girl children who work in these mines who are regularly raped and assaulted by men who face no consequences? How could she write about poverty without understanding the relationship that humans used to have with the Earth and its rich and flourishing ecosystems until corporations came along and stole that inheritance, not just from us, but from all living beings and natural communities? 

I am not just disappointed in her writing about work; I am actively angry about it. The term that kept entering my mind while reading this section of the book was “luxury beliefs.” The belief that we can have business-as-usual by alternative means by “empowering workers” is perhaps the ultimate luxury belief. 

Domination vs. partnership

At the beginning of the chapter, the author talks about domination vs. partnership models for society, citing Riane Eisler’s work on the topic. The domination model “ranks man over woman, man over man, race over race, and religion over religion.” What Eisler and Herrington leave out of this description is that it also ranks humans over nature—human supremacy—and explicitly encourages the exploitation of nature for human benefit. 

Eisler (and Herrington) compare this to a partnership model of relatively flat, democratic hierarchies, in which we “take care of one another” and use “nonviolent solutions” to conflict. That sounds great, except that it leaves in place the domination of humans over nature. 

A perfectly flat organizational structure at a corporation, or co-op even, that makes widgets that require mining metals from the Earth is still a domination model for a company. While the human social structure might be democratic and empowering, the natural world is still exploited for the benefit of humans. 

Herrington writes:

---

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.

---

This rankled me to no end. This framing is a facile understanding of matriarchy. Perhaps if Herrington were aware of Heide Goettner-Abendroth’s studies of matriarchal societies, which she obviously is not, she might have written a better book. What a missed opportunity, because a true understanding of matriarchal societies seems to align well with Herrington’s desire for society to meet our needs so that we have enough for each:

---

“Matriarchal societies are consciously built upon maternal values and motherly work, and this is why they are much more realistic than patriarchies. They are, on principle, need-oriented. They aim to meet everyone’s needs with the greatest benefit. So, in matriarchies, mothering – which originates as a biological fact – is transformed into a cultural model. This model is much more appropriate to the human condition than the patriarchal conception of motherhood which is used to make women, and especially mothers, into slaves.

Within matriarchal cultures, equality means more than just a levelling of differences. Natural differences between the genders and the generations are respected and honoured, but they never serve to create hierarchies, as is common in patriarchy. The different genders and generations each have their own dignity, and through complementary areas of activity, they function in concert one other. More precisely, matriarchies are societies with complementary equality, where great care is taken to provide a balance. This applies to the balance between genders, among generations, and between humans and nature. Maternal values as ethical principles pervade all areas of a matriarchal society. This creates an attitude of care-taking, nurturing, and peacemaking.”

(Emphasis added; from Matriarchies Are Not Just a Reversal of Patriarchies: A Structural Analysis by Heide Goettner-Abendroth.)

---

Multipolar traps

And now, we get to one of the most important topics this book should have covered, and yet left it completely unexplored: the multipolar trap.  The section on the partnership model ends with one paragraph that is the only mention of this critical issue, an issue so important that it must drive any exploration of how to avoid global collapse.  

---

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.

---

Throughout the book, Herrington is urging us as individuals, as employers, and as a society to stop when we have enough; to “leave it in the ground,” so to speak, if we don’t really need it. But countries compete as well as cooperate with one another. Competition between corporations and countries isn’t a topic that Herrington addresses, not even in her sections on work, on economics, or even on governments. (The word “competition” doesn’t appear once in the book.) 

On a country by country basis, a multi-polar trap is most easily seen in the ever escalating military force between competing countries. Countries like the U.S. and China. The U.S. and Russia. Iran and Israel. Pakistan and India. And so on. If a country like Russia adds nuclear weapons to its arsenal, then the U.S. will too. If Russia adds more drones, then Ukraine will ask the U.S. to send more drones. If China develops smarter AI for military applications, then the U.S. will invest more in AI too. 

Multipolar traps are everywhere in society, at all levels of society. They will determine whether any of our efforts to limit our catastrophic impacts on the Earth will succeed or fail. We sometimes refer to this as the tragedy of the commons. No discussion of “avoiding collapse,” as in the title of Herrington’s book, is complete without an in-depth discussion of this issue.

Herrington’s solution to this is that we come together as a global community:

---

The problems humanity is faced with are on a global scale now, so there’s ample reason for the global community to come together to work on them. Despite the dispiriting inaction against climate change, there are also recent examples of society doing just that to solve a common threat, such as the now-recovering ozone layer and the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

---

It is ironic that the two things Herrington chose as examples of how the global community can come together are both terrible examples. The ozone hole recovery was relatively easy compared to, say, nuclear disarmament, climate change, world-wide pollution, and so on. It required inventing another chemical and convincing (most of) the world to switch from one chemical to another. It should be self-evidently obvious this is a different category of problem compared to the existential crises we face today. 

The COVID-19 pandemic had a moment of togetherness when we all clapped for health-care workers and voluntarily masked up but it didn’t last long. A mere two years after this book was published, COVID-19 is one of the most divisive issues of our time what with anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, conspiracy theorists, and an utterly disgraceful “it’s over,” by President Biden resulting in lowering people’s guard. Since he said those words, hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. alone have died of COVID-19, and millions are experiencing the devastating impacts of Long Covid as a result.  In Nov 2024, as I write this, most can barely even say the word "Covid" and people have to pretend that they have a "cold" because it’s so unmentionable. 

Does Herrington really think that Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and India will all come together and agree to “leave it in the ground”? To unilaterally disarm nuclear weapons and dismantle military forces? If she does, she’s hopelessly naive. If she doesn’t, then why isn’t this discussed as a huge weak point in her thesis? 

Facing reality

Herrington writes:

---

What it comes down to is that our narrative needs to mature. This is not a new insight, of course. Greta Thunberg scolded world leaders at the UN Climate Action Summit for not being ‘mature enough’.

---

Well, yes, it would be nice if we could “mature our narrative.” Even better, if we could face reality. 

The problem is not just the narrative. The problem is there is no solution to climate change, or any of the other existential ecological crises we face, that doesn't require radically changing our way of life. Greta says "follow the science”—okay, but to what policies?—and "take action on climate change”—okay, but what action? Specifically, please? And how does her activism on climate change fit into the broader issue of ecological overshoot, two words I've never heard Greta ever say?

Herrington admonishes us that “[e]scaping old mindsets requires deeply uncomfortable introspection and constant vigilance for habitual patterns.” She’s correct. Unfortunately most people carefully avoid doing this. We are a species with a penchant for denial of uncomfortable truths, and a tendency to delusional optimism. This book does not reassure me we can overcome these flaws.

Perhaps most irritating about the economics section of the book is that while the author recognizes the focus on jobs, she does not acknowledge that in a world in which one species—us—has to pay money to live on Earth, of course the emphasis will be on jobs. Until the root cause—based in the notion of land and nature as “property”—of this problem is solved, the emphasis will always be on jobs. As it has been for decades if not centuries. She says “Trump’s ‘JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!’” as if Trump was the first to say this, but most of us know that every president says this. When you have to pay to live on Earth, it will always be about jobs.

Objectifying nature

One last beef with the book I’ll mention before I wrap up with her “Big Five Turnarounds” that will supposedly lead us into a “sustainable revolution” is the framing of nature as “resources” and as “natural capital.” I touched on this at the beginning in my word count review, but I’d like to revisit it, as it is a dead giveaway of the human supremacy that suffuses this book.

In Herrington’s discussion of various ways we can run economies and structure society, and capitalism in particular, she writes:

---

[M]ore enlightened versions of capitalism are unified around the argument that an economic system should protect and build what has societal value—which is much more than what can be measured by profits. My personal favorite might be Hunter Lovins’ Natural Capitalism, which proposes that next to manufactured and financial capital, we also measure human, social, and natural capital. Natural Capitalism offers four pillars to put this into practice: radically more efficient use of resources, learning from and designing after nature, aligning incentives between businesses, workers, and consumers by moving to a service and flow economy (think of product-as-a-service business models, for example), and regenerating the natural capital that ultimately every company depends on through restoration or reinvestments. I cannot be sure, but I think it is still possible to transform the current “greed is good” narrative into one of these more “enough for each” versions of capitalism.

---

As I hope is clear from this quote, this is a domination model of humans over nature. Nature is explicitly described as being for humans. Calling it “capital” is critical to indoctrinating all of us to think of nature as here for us, and is just the beginning of our conversion to human supremacy. Her description of natural capital’s four pillars makes clear that it’s all about the humans and about business-as-usual. “Regenerating the natural capital that … every company depends on…”—it could not be any clearer.

It reminds me of my recent analysis of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the policy framework of the biannual global biodiversity meetings, most recently, COP16. That too is a human supremacist document, one that views nature as here to benefit humans, with no agency or inherent value separate from us.

The human supremacy ideology is global and pervasive, and we have no chance of a radical shift in our societies to prevent global collapse unless we can admit to and then change that.

The Big Five Turnarounds

Chapter 7 ends with The Big Five Turnarounds, reminiscent of David Korten’s The Great Turning. They are listed in a section subtitled “Let’s Shoot For the Earth,” so I’m expecting something truly revolutionary, truly magnificent here. As Herrington describes them these are “proposals for a deliberate, drastic break with business as usual.”

They are:

---

1. Energy: From fossil fuels and energy wastefulness to renewable energy, highly improved efficiency, and electrified transport, heat, and industry;

2. Inequality: From inequality to inclusiveness and fairer distribution of wealth through progressive taxation, trade reunionization, and a universal basic dividend;

3. Poverty: From debt and poverty traps in low-income areas to instigating fair and different models for human and planetary prosperity, including new growth models and debt cancellation;

4. Food: From extensive, extractive agriculture to regenerative agriculture, diets low in grain-fed meats, and significantly less food waste;

5. Empowerment: From discrimination to education, opportunity, and equal leadership participation for women everywhere.

---

I have to admit I’m underwhelmed, but honestly not surprised. This is essentially business-as-usual by alternative means; slightly more equal, and slightly nicer for women. That’s it. Drastic break? I think not. Wait, I read this entire book just for this?

Her enthusiasm for so-called “renewable energy” betrays that she hasn’t thought nearly deeply enough about the scale and scope of the crises we face, and that she is a bright green, which means it’s less about nature and more about us. It means that despite spending a good chunk of time on the Limits to Growth model, she has no deep understanding of ecological overshoot. It means that with just one sentence about “rights of nature,” she has no deep understanding of what true rights of nature means or what it would imply.

It means her entire analysis is a fantasy. It is superficial and based in false hope.

That multiple people expressed unbridled enthusiasm about her work in recommending it to me makes me sad, as it reflects the superficial understanding of these problems by the public at large. People flock to anything that gives them hope at a time when we are all concerned about many different global problems, and work like this gives people hope. Except that it is false hope. People love optimism and loathe realism. But how can we deal with existential environmental crises if we can’t face reality?

There are some things in Herrington’s book I can appreciate, but overall, the book is not helpful. At best, it will teach people a bit about Limits to Growth; at worst, it will further indoctrinate people into human supremacy and leave them shocked and surprised when no “sustainable revolution” is forthcoming.