Available via license: CC BY-SA
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ethics in Progress (ISSN 2084-9257). Vol. 7 (2016). No. 1,
Art. #2, pp. 01-20. doi: 10.14746/eip.2016.1.1
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context
of Ecological Limits
Iwona Stachowska
(The Maria Grzegorzewska University in Warsaw, ivsta@wp.pl)
What to do to want less?
Hanna Krall
It is not so much a matter of giving more as of taking less.
Serge Latouche
In order to live better, we now have to produce and consume differently,
to do better and more with less.
André Gorz
1. Introduction
“What to do to want less?” (Krall 2015). Hanna Krall asked Leszek Kołakowski
that question almost half a century ago but still, it remains valid. It can be even
said that nowadays it has become even more compelling and turned out to be a
vital problem that requires to be solved. In times of a growing ecological crisis
pertinent to the depletion of the planet’s resources, increasing environmental
and social costs, such as climate changes threats to biodiversity, deepening
social inequalities and discrepancies between developed and developing
countries, it is not easy not to see that the paradigm of the exponential
economic growth seems unfeasible to maintain. The attachment to the growing
GDP, to the welfare defined in material categories and to the everyday comfort
is so strong that it is not easy to get out of that iron cage of the growth.
“How is it that with so much stuff already we still hunger for more?” –
asks Tim Jackson (2009, p. 4) anticipating, in the logical order, the
aforementioned question – What to do to want less? Where and how to define
the limits of growth? How to reconcile the financial capital with the natural and
social ones? The response to these questions is to seek for alternative ways of
thinking and development, different from those measured and driven by the
GDP index. An essential element of the degrowth and sustainable strategies of
development is a reference to the constraint category both in the qualitative
and quantitative contexts. The paper will try to demonstrate that the constrain
category, which is a counterweight to the unbridled growth is not only a
politico-economic strategy but also an ethical postulate.
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
2
Let us take a closer look at the contexts in which constraint occurs in the
prosperity without growth project proposed by Tim Jackson and in Serge
Latouche’s proposition of de-growth (La Décroissance).
2. Ecological Limits, i.e. a Planet with Limited Capabilities
Key issue, in the case of a critique of the paradigm of constantly growing
profits, production, consumption, increasing efficiency, and at the same time
growing debt, is a strong and clear articulation of inevitability of a clash with the
social, economic, and ecological limits. The basic idea here is to rebut the belief
that economic growth and increase in wealth may unceasingly indicate the
main direction of the progress of civilisation, and thus show how risky is
sustaining the illusion of growth that stands in contradiction to the finite
resources of the planet. Every kind of growth within the framework of a
limited system must come to an end. Hence, it is legitimate to ask when it will
happen, as well as an attempt to prevent it from happening, but not the
considerations weather the resources get exhausted (see: Jackson 2009, pp. 1-
18; Latouche 2009, pp. 23-25; Popkiewicz 2012, pp. 100-104).
It is a kind of argumentation that various authors refer to. Jackson is
one of them. For him the problem of reconciling out will for a good life with the
limited capabilities of the natural environment to satisfy that will is a starting
point for looking for alternative ways of development (see: Jackson 2009, pp. 2-
3). This British economist working for the Sustainable Development
Commission, in his book Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite
Planet, which is an enhanced version of the 2003 report published by that
commission under the title Redefying Prosperity (SDC 2003), writes: “Any
credible vision of prosperity has to address the question of limits. This is
particularly true of a vision based on growth. How – and for how long – is
continued growth possible without coming up against the ecological limits of a
finite planet?” (Jackson 2009, pp. 5-6).
The problem of defining the growth limits is not, of course, a new one,
but it is still very current and highly debated. Its roots are traced to the
formulated at the turn of the 18th century by Thomas Robert Malthus the
“principle of population,” which sense is conveyed in an observation that
geometrical growth of population occurs quicker than the arithmetic growth of
efficiency of soil and food production necessary to address the basic needs of
that population, what inevitably leads to a crucial point where the number of
people exceeds the level of availability of resources (Malthus 2003; Jackson
2009, pp. 6-7). Although the scenario predicted by the Anglican priest has not
become a reality – in time the pace of population growth slowed down and
technological development has made the necessary means of survival growing
faster than the number of people – the recognition of the finite capabilities of
the environment is extremely valuable.
Iwona Stachowska
3
Garrett Hardin writes in a similar vein. In the published in 1968 article
The Tragedy of the Commons he refers to the example of pasture and explains
how seemingly trivial decisions on exploitation of common goods (pasture)
result in destruction of shared resources (Hardin 1968, pp. 1243-1248).
Unlimited access to limited common goods and their irresponsible use lead to
their depletion, i.e. the title tragedy. Therefore, in result, all (current and
potential) users of the resources lose, regardless the fact that it was in no-one’s
interest. “A finite world can support only a finite populations” – writes Hardin
(Hardin 1968, p. 1243). What is interesting, the American biologist sees the
solution to that problem not in new technologies that would be able to reduce
negative effects of human impact on the natural environment, e.g. thanks to the
introduction of new alternative methods of obtaining food or energy, but in the
change of the moral nature. That is why he sees the rescue only in social
contract limiting individuals in their access to common goods.
Perhaps the most known document associated with the problem of
ecological limits and the limits of growth is a report prepared in the 1970s
under the aegis of the Club of Rome entitled Limits to Growth (Meadows,
Meadows, Rander, & Behrens III 1972). Donatella and Dennis Meadows and the
team, taking into account an exponential growth of economic activity, resource
use, and the number of population, prepared a computer-based model that
forecasted reaching a turning point, where significant shortages of resources
will occur. According to their prognosis, we were to face the limits of growth at
the beginning of the 21st century. Catastrophic predictions included in the first
report of the Club of Rome and stemming from it the zero growth postulate as a
necessary direction of economic development change were immediately
criticised. They brought about resistance especially among the pro-growth
economists. For, accepting the conclusions stemming from the simulations and
recognition of the vision of a global catastrophe was related to a profound
alteration of the established economic paradigms and the whole socio-
economic model. In practice, the attachment to evaluation of market and non-
market processes in categories of financial effectiveness turned out to be
stronger. Eventually, the prognoses included in the report were in principle
marginalized. The sceptics’ beliefs were supported by the fact that apart from
the rapid and unequivocal 2008 financial crisis no catastrophe has happened
(Popkiewicz 2012, pp. 97-104). The resources were not depleted, the
apparition of oil peak has been postponed in time, and the climate change
progresses slowly and is not spectacular enough to catch the attention and
divert the pro-growth trend. It is clear then that – what was rightly noticed by
Zbigniew Hull, who referred to the metaphor of Aurelio Peccei – “the idea and
practice of sustainable development loses against the god of growth that seized
the world” (Hull 2008, p. 31). Meanwhile, as it is shown by numerous analyses
and reports, including the Graham Turner’s book A Comparison of the Limits to
Growth with Thirty Years of Reality (2008), Charles Hall’s and W. Day’s article
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
4
Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil (2009, pp. 230-237), or the book
Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows 2004)
written by the authors of the original report, the prognoses from 40 years ago
are still valid, or at least have not changed enough to alter the conclusions from
the previous publication. The postulate of limiting the growth is also still
relevant and it continually stimulates the search for alternative concepts of
development, such as the ones worked out by Jackson or Latouche.
Ecological limit of a different kind that should not be omitted is the
problem of the capability of ecosystems and the biosphere to assimilate the
effects of fast and energy-consuming economic activity, especially the
overproduction and consumption of goods harmful to the environment.
Ecological risk stemming from that (the rise of temperature, rising water levels,
decline in biodiversity, contamination of soil and water, deforestation) is one of
the most important challenges that we have ever had to face. “Even before we
run out of oil, we’re running out of planet” – quotes Jackson after Bill McKibb
and emphasises the limited capability of the climate to absorb increasingly
growing greenhouse emissions (Jackson 2009, p. 11). The 2006 Stern Report
(2007) analyses the impact of global warming on global economy and points
out the necessity to tackle the climate change. It also alerts to the consequences
of failing to carry out actions aiming at creating low-emissions economy.
Nicolas Stern using the language of economic analyses that treat the biosphere
as a part of economy tried to show that it is worthy to invest in climate
protection because it pays off economically. The British economist argued that
it is possible to protect the climate without a radical limitation of economic
growth, which was the main point of his standpoint (Stern 2007, pp. i-ix; see
also: Stern 2010, pp. 16-19). Dieter Helm perceived Stern’s diagnosis as too
optimistic – “The easy compatibility between economic growth and climate
change, which lies at the heart of the Stern Report, is an illusion” (Helm 2009;
see also: Jackson 2009, p. 85). Maintaining the growth at the current level with
the simultaneous high cost of investment in renewable energy sources and
ecosystem protection is, according to the economist specialising in energy
issues, impossible. Martin L. Weitzman, on the other hand, criticised a low
discount rate (1.4%), which was adopted by Stern for his calculations by
showing that with a higher discount rate (6%) investing in climate protection
seizes to be profitable in the narrow economic sense (see: Weitzman 2007;
Popkiewicz 2012, p. 340). The vision of sustaining the growing trends was
undoubtedly a tempting scenario. Unfortunately, it also raised an invitation –
contrary to Stern’s intentions – to stay with the current consumer habits and
thereby to linger in the trap of growth.
Consumer society maintains the illusion of constant growth and is
seduced not so much by the freedom of unlimited gathering of material goods
but rather by a quick getting rid of them. It is facilitated, on the one hand, by the
chase after novelty, and on the other, the planned and accelerated aging of
Iwona Stachowska
5
products. However, as noted by Zygmunt Bauman – “The cult of novelty may be
a manifestation of false awareness that obscures the truth that one is driven by
not the desire of new things, but rather the urge to clean up the field; this
awareness however is necessary for self-recreation of the economy based on
quick circulation of products and the increase of the amount of money
changing hands, i.e. GDP (Bauman 2015, p. 43; own transl.). Serge Latouche
strongly opposes that mechanism. The French economist and philosopher, one
of the main theoreticians and propagators of the degrowth idea (fr.
décroissance), criticises the logic of consumerism based on the model: novelty –
excess, more – better, and sees in it the main threat for the stable future of the
planet (Latouche 2009, pp. 16-20, 23-25). He inculpates the ideology glorifying
consumerism for littering and polluting the environment, excessive exploitation
of energy, consuming vast amounts of natural resources, destruction of forests,
high emissions of greenhouse gases, and finally the increase of social and
economic inequalities, including the production and ecological exploitation of
poor countries, whose human and natural resources developed economies
willingly use and export in exchange tonnes of toxic waste, mainly electronic
and electric rubbish (Latouche 2009, pp. 19, 37). As reported by the European
Environmental Agency over 15 000 tonnes of colour TV sets were exported
from the European Union to African countries in 2005 (EEA Signals 2009, p.
36). Taking into account the fact that these data are underestimated and the
overall export of e-waste is much larger and that just 14% of it undergoes
recycling and the rest is deposited on waste dumps, it is no surprise that
ecological debt of the developed countries of the North to the developing
countries of the South is so often mentioned (see: Latouche 2009, p. 37;
Jackson 2009, pp. 84-85; WWF 2006, p. 25). By transferring the costs of the
present consumption onto the natural environment, poor countries, and future
generations we are dangerously getting closer to ecological limits that cannot
be taken into account while planning future actions. Both Latouche and Jackson
agree that under current circumstances fuelling consumption that drives the
growth is a manifestation of extraordinary irresponsibility (see: Latouche
2009, pp. 16-30; Jackson 2009, pp. 87-102). What scenario then could become
an alternative for the consumer exploitation of the globe?
3. Degrowth, i.e., Quantitative and Qualitative Constraint
The growth dilemma we face is a choice between a continuation of
unsustainable growth, bought by an increasing depletion of resources,
environmental costs and growing social inequalities, and an uncertain
degrowth that under the present conditions may lead to a collapse of
consumption, drop in production, increase of unemployment, recession and
bankruptcy (see: Jackson 2009, p. 64-65; Latouche 2009, p. 3-4; Popkiewicz
2012, p. 96). In such a form the problem appears rather as an apparent
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
6
dilemma. The short-term profit-and-loss account pleads in favour of the first
solution, although its choice is a “dead end” restricted by ecological limits. If we,
however, take a broader look and realise what Jackson turns the attention to –
“In pursuit of the good life today, we are systematically eroding the basis for
well-being tomorrow. We stand in real danger of losing any prospect of a
shared and lasting prosperity” (Jackson 2009, p. 2) – then it may transpire that
degrowth is the only reasonable strategy for the future. “The alternative really
is: de-growth or barbarism” – tellingly sums up Latouche (2009, p. 8) with
reference to a title of one of the books of a political scientist, Paul Ariés (2005).
The term décroissance, degrowth in English, came into existence as a
depiction referring in a narrower sense to the economic model aiming at a
decrease of economic production, and in a broader context, as an idea pertinent
to socio-political change. Latouche explains: “The de-growth society project is
eminently revolutionary. We are taking about cultural change, as well as
changes in the legal structure and relations of production” (Latouche 2009, p.
66). In other places he adds: “De-growth is a political project in the strong
sense of the term. It means building convivial societies that are autonomous
and economical in both the North and the South” (Latouche 2009, p. 32); “Its
goal is to build a society in which we can live better lives whilst working less
and consuming less” (Latouche 2009, p. 9). The French researcher emphasises
that degrowth should not be confused with aforementioned unemployment,
recession, bankruptcy. At the same time he is aware that similar confusions
will occur until the society stays in the iron cage of growth. In his Farewell to
Growth (fr. Petit traité de la décroissance sereine) he writes: “de-growth is
conceivable only in a de–growth society, or in other words within the
framework of a system that is based upon a different logic” (Latouche 2009, p.
8). Jackson is of similar opinion: “(…) that challenge compels as to develop a
different kind of economic structure. But it’s clear that this task isn’t sufficient.
We also have to find a way through the institutional and social constraints that
lock us into a failing system. In particular, we need to identify opportunities for
change within society – change in values, change in lifestyles, change in social
structure – that will free us from the damaging social logic of consumerism”
(Jackson 2009, p. 102). Both of them amicably stress that nowadays we are
faced with a necessity of reformulating the existing attitudes and priorities.
Constraint has an essential place in that new strategy; its choice assumes the
proportions of a political and economic necessity. However, it is worthwhile to
clarify and distinguish what kind of constraint had in mind the above
mentioned researchers. For, constraint in the qualitative aspect is not the same
as constraint in the qualitative one. Equating constraint with decrease, decline,
reduction, we operate in a different meaning territory, than when we talk about
constraint as a situation of human choice, although in the degrowth project
both those areas are interconnected. Latouche and Jackson mention
Iwona Stachowska
7
quantitative constraint usually when talking about a new model of economic
structure, and the qualitative one in the context of alteration of social logic.
“Flourishing within limits is a real possibility” argues Jackson (2009, p.
149). The first step to achieve it is accurate establishing the limits:
“Establishing clear resource and environmental limits and integrating these
limits into both economic functioning and social functioning is essential”
(Jackson 2009, p. 173). A great deal is said about the quantitative limitation of
growth, consumption greenhouse gas emissions, use of fossil fuels, and the
levels the appropriate indices should reach are defined. In such a context
constraint is present in many international documents and reports, i.a. the
2011 Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from
economic growth report issued within the frames of the United Nations
Environmental Programme (UNEP), which is based on the postulate of
limitation of using the natural resources to the levels allowing for their
recreation (see: UNEP 2011). Referring to quantitative constrains Jackson turns
the attention to the Contraction & Convergence model developed by the Global
Commons Institute. The model is used to determine the ceiling for the
consumption of resources and pollution, and for defining a just limit of
emissions per each citizen in relation to the emissions level in accordance with
the assumed stabilization goals (see: Jackson 2009, pp. 173-174).
In order to stay in the specified ecological scale the British economist
proposes a change of the economic model and signalises an urgent need to
follow the path of ecological macroeconomics. He argues for a low-efficiency
economy, the so-called “Cinderella economy,” which is based on dematerialised
services, i.e. the sector of individual and social services, and hence on an
increase of investments in that industry. Jackson also turns the attention to
following prudence in financial intermediation, as well as the change of
economic indices, and particularly resigning from the far from perfect GDP
index with the help of which one is unable to measure the quality of life and the
services offered by an informal sector of economy, such as housework, social
work or care (Jackson 2009, pp. 41-43, 125, 179). In turn, ecological
investments leading to a long-term, effective and raw material- and energy-
saving consumption (energy efficiency improvement, reducing the amount of
waste, recycling, prolonging the life-cycle of products, transformation of
resources retardation, renewable energy sources) should become an economic
priority accompanied by a taxation of environmental damages (carbon dioxide
emission), as well as by engagement into repairing the losses and
enhancement of the functionality of ecosystems (afforestation, restoring
wetlands) (Jackson 2009, pp. 139, 211-212).
The next, probably the most important task is an attempt to change the
logic of social thinking, leading attitudes and ways of behaviour. Among many
possible meanings, constraint appears in this context as a situation of human
choice, an intentional downgrade, or to be more precise, self-constraint. In that
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
8
way the postulate of constraint goes beyond quantitative economic criteria and
defines a particular kind of approach toward the world and a specific lifestyle
related to the ideals of voluntary simplicity, simple living, minimalism,
sustainable consumption. The most radical among those – voluntary simplicity
– has philosophical and religious roots, which basic outline can be found,
among others, in the theories of Cynics, Stoics, in Taoism, or the teaching of
Mahatma Ghandi (Kronenberg & Iida 2011, pp. 67-68). Duane Elgin argues that
it also possesses a particular contemporary features. It is characterised by
slowdown of life, material simplicity, bringing back the human dimension to the
personal and professional life, self-control and refusal to yield to the external
and social influences, ecological awareness, as well as personal development
and reflectance (Elgin & Michell 1977, pp. 4-9). The distinguished forms of
consumption limitations are joined by a common idea of a better life and
satisfaction from addressing non-material needs. Jackson appreciates the
positive qualities of every one of them but especially privileges sustainable
consumption, which in his opinion guarantees twofold benefits: improvement
of life quality on account of consumption reduction and at the same time
limiting out destructive impact on the environment thanks to realisation that
each and every one of us is a consumer of natural resources and by our
irresponsible actions we contribute to deepening of the ecological crisis
(Jackson 2005, p. 25).
However, it would be naïve to think that individual endeavours to
simplify life are enough: “It’s clear that changing the social logic of
consumption cannot simply be relegated to the realm of individual choice. In
spite of a growing desire for change, it’s almost impossible for people to simply
choose sustainable lifestyles, however much they’d like to. (...) The chances of
extending this behaviour across society are negligible without changes in the
social structure” (Jackson 2009, p. 153). On the one hand conflicts arise
because the individuals trying to implement the principles of limiting
consumption are in opposition to the mainstream attitudes and values in the
society, and on the other, such endeavours run the risk of superficial realisation
of the idea of simplicity, self-constraint and sustainability, which ultimately end
up as a numerous sham activities. Popkiewicz warns against that danger by
showing that succumbing to masking strategies and focusing one’s efforts
solely on such actions as: the use of energy-efficient light bulbs, turning off the
water while brushing teeth, removing the charger plug from the socket, placing
a request in the E-mail footer to not to print it out due to environmental care,
while driving a high-emissions car and travelling frequently by plane improves
only our mood and has no real influence either on the change of the
established trends, or a significant improvement of the state of the natural
environment (Popkiewicz 2012, pp. 454-455). Similarly, giving in to the
temptation of declined in various forms adjectives like “green” or “ecological,”
thoughtless following the fashion for eco-parenting, eco-products, eco-tourism,
Iwona Stachowska
9
eco-coal does not solve the energy crisis, or the climate one. Moreover, he
echoes Jackson’s concerns that it is every difficult to resign from existing
luxuries, what stems from the attachment to the social status confirmed by new
products. The antidote for these problems, both Jackson and Latouche see in
the change of social structure: “The first will be to dismantle or correct the
perverse incentives for unsustainable (and unproductive) status competition.
The second must be to establish new structures that provide capabilities for
people to flourish, and particularly to participate fully in the life of society, in
less materialistic ways” (Jackson 2009, p. 153). That list could be enlarged by
the necessity of exposing and correcting the apparently sustainable actions.
The project of changing the social structure aiming at construction of a
degrowth society is a challenge, which Latouche concentrates his efforts upon.
The tool of change is supposed to be “the virtuous circle of quiet contraction”
(fr. Le cercle vertueux de décroissance sereine), called also “the virtuous circle of
degrowth” or “the virtuous circles’ of eight ‘R’s,” which particular elements
create a mutually conditioned cycle of changes (see: Latouche 2004; 2003;
2005; 2009, pp. 33–43). In consists of: re-evaluate, reconceptualise, restructure,
redistribute, relocalise, reduce, re-use and recycle.
Re-evaluation (fr. réévaluer) consists in rejecting a way of life
characteristic for the growth society. In the opinion of the propagator of the
idea of décroissance, the new axiological background should be defined by the
values opposite to the middle-class ethos: altruism should take the position of
egoism, collaboration – of relentless competition, the pleasure of leisure and
ethos of having fun – of working obsession, the significance of social life – of
unlimited consumerism, locality – of that what is global, autonomy –
heteronomy, the pleasure of work well done – of efficiency, rationality – of
materiality, harmonious coexistence with nature – reigning over it (Latouche
2009, p. 34).
The change in the sphere of values is accompanied by
reconceptualization (fr. reconceptualiser). Crucial notions and categories, like
wealth and poverty, shortage and surplus require deconstruction and re-
definition. Consumer culture defines shortage by artificial creation of needs and
by developing in the consumer the feeling of deficit. Latouche explains that by
staying within that definition sphere we are stuck in the concepts created by
the growth paradigm and are unable to change. Jackson as well makes
reconceptualization the central point of his considerations. He adopts a new
understanding of the notion “prosperity,” and defines it in a qualitative, not a
quantitative variant: “Prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends
material concerns. It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and
happiness if our family. It is present in the strength of our relationships and
our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our
sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate
fully in the life of society” (Jackson 2009, p. 16).
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
10
The next step in the degrowth cycle of changes is restructuring (fr.
restructurer), which encompasses adjusting the production mechanisms to the
described above alterations of notions and values, primarily moving towards
ecological and low-emissions solutions.
Redistribution (fr. redistribuer) or restructuration in the area of social
relations addresses the issue of just distribution of goods among the countries
of the North and South, social classes, generations, and is supposed to serve a
reduction of economic inequalities, exploitation, and poverty. Latouche strongly
emphasises the need of paying back the ecological debt to the countries of the
South through, among other ways, limitation of using natural resources.
Relocalising (fr. relocaliser) privileges local, collective social enterprises
that limit to a necessary minimum the network of goods and capital flow
(Latouche 2009, pp. 37-38). A shift towards re-establishing interpersonal
relations and strengthening social and neighbourly ties should be recognised as
an additional outcome of relocalisation.
The next element – reducing (fr. réduire) is closely related, according to
Latouche, with reducing the impact of the mechanisms of production and
consumption on the biosphere. This is why he argues for downsizing the
massive tourism, which is considered as one of the main enemies of the natural
environment. Also the time spent at work should be limited. Both Latouche and
Jackson see a need to shorten the time of work and increasing the leisure time
allowing for reflection, discussion, self-development. The policy of reducing the
working time is also considered to be a tool in the fight against unemployment.
Finally, re-use (fr. réutiliser) and recycle (fr. recycler), that is all possible
methods of use, processing, and re-use of waste, which should, as far as
possible, be implemented already at the stage of the production of artefacts.
The group should be completed by “resist” (fr. résistance), which is a
main driving force of change, an element conditioning all other parts of “the
virtuous circle of quiet contraction” (Latouche 2009, p. 43). Indeed, the
degrowth project stems from the need to objection the current limitations that
constrict individuals; it resists the necessity to inscribe into the framework of
hyper-consumerism, questions the growth paradigm, does not agree for either
the manipulation of our needs and desires, or predatory exploitation of the
natural development.
Justified is a question often formulated by the opponents of
sustainability: Is degrowth a feasible programme? Should questioning of the
need for the further economic growth be treated as a noble but abstractive
model of planning future actions? Can the concept of degrowth be seen as a
politico-economic project, or merely as a collocation of catchy, attention-
drawing slogans?
Latouche himself calls it utopian: “The de-growth project is therefore a
utopia, or in other words a source of hope and dreams. Far from representing a
flight into fantasy, it is an attempt to explore the objective possibility of its
Iwona Stachowska
11
implementation” (Latouche 2009, p. 32). The author of Farewell to Growth
treats it however as an example of “concrete utopia” understood as proposed by
Ernst Bloch. In this sense Latouche perceives it as a theoretical tool that is a
response to the needs and developmental trends of the current situation. He is
aware that it would not be easy to implement its theses but he does not see that
as a weakness. “Without the hypothesis that a different world is possible, there
can be no politics, but only the administrative management of men and things”
– he quotes a sociologist, Geneviéve Decrop (Latouche 2009, p. 32).
Jackson, on the other hand, is far from calling the prosperity without
growth project a utopia and tellingly refuses to admit it: “For the advanced
economies of the western world, prosperity without growth is no longer a
utopia dream. It is a financial and ecological necessity” (Jackson 2009, p. 185).
That is why he demands concrete action and engagement of the governments of
the developed countries in implementing that kind of solutions and
transformations.
Still, leaving behind the paradigm of economic growth is treated by
many politicians and economists as unrealistic, purely theoretical postulate.
The example of the undertaken actions for sustainable development shows that
the process of change progresses slowly, but it does not mean that it is
unfounded and unjustified. As Hull observes: “Even if the vision of sustainable
development is to a large extent utopian, such a utopia – indicating the
possibilities of a different way of use of nature resources, as well as social and
individual life – is very needed today” (Hull 2003, p. 24).
4. Ethical Postulate of Constraint, i.e. towards the
Environmental Ethics
The two projects, apart from strictly political and economic solutions, serve as a
tool of socio-moral (Latouche 2009) or politico-ethical (Jackson 2015) change
that support citizens’ grass-roots endeavours to transform the lifestyle,
attitudes, and behaviours. One should remember that changes of that kind
cannot remain axiologically neutral even if they do not directly refer to axiology.
For, a modification of attitudes is connected with the change of the evaluation
approach, and thus it influences the assessment of a given situation or artefact
by an individual. The quoted proponents of degrowth are aware of that and do
not shy away from the language of values. They refer to axiology and ethics, and
make them one of the most crucial elements of the proposed change.
The author of Farewell to Growth when elucidating the intricacies of the
degrowth programme explains: “Whilst this is a political project, its
implementation has more to do with an ethics of responsibility than with an
ethics of conviction” (Latouche 2009, p. 66). He refers here to the introduced
by Max Weber distinction between ethics focused on carrying out established
moral norm (ethic of ultimate ends) and ethics that gravitates around the
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
12
consequences of human action (ethic of responsibility) (see: Weber 1987, pp.
101-102). Ethic of responsibility aims at protection of values, and the
evaluation of human choices from the point of view of the consequences for
these values can be conceived as its principle. Politically engaged degrowth
programme is much closer, as rightly noticed by Latouche, to an ethic of
responsibility, which concentrates on moral significance of agency. It is so
because the programme defines the direction of the desired social changes
having regard to the economic and ecological limitations of the constant
growth. It also means that the constraint postulate stemming from the
objection towards a deceiving logic of consumerism, according to which ‘more’
always translates into ‘better,’ does not have the characteristic of
unconditionally binding principle. Not in every situation it will be understood
as an equivalent of what is good, proper, appropriate. More often it is treated as
a measure and can be used for protection of the following values: life, health,
justice, common good analysed in social and environmental scale. It is a
collection of universal values, what speaks rather in favour of the degrowth
standpoint because it increases the chance that people will be willing to act in
compliance with its objectives (see: Papuziński 2013).
The postulate of constraint, which in the light if the carried out
distinctions should be more precisely described as “a readiness for self-
constraint,” on the one hand takes the form of a will to narrow the frames of
growth, consumption, owning, exploitation of resources – in accordance with
the thought behind the motto “live better by consuming less, but on the other
hand, it applies to our obligations towards the natural development, other
people, the contemporary and future generations, and calls for constraint for
their sake. In the French thinker’s opinion constraint is not about giving more
but to take away less (Latouche 2009, p. 37). In contrast, Jackson, who respects
the attachment of the contemporary consumers to comfort, perceives the
constraint imperative not actually as a principle motivating for reducing
consumption, but rather an incentive to not to consume more (Jackson 2011).
It may seem that these are minimal expectations for a moral agent but this
minimalism has its perks. Not being a strong opposition but merely an
alternative for the established consumption patterns it does not doom the
constraint postulate to immediate failure.
It is also worthy to mention that none of the researchers propagates
total resignation from consuming natural and manufactured goods. They just
argue that people should limit themselves to stay within the frames defined by
the ecological limits of development. Therefore, a moral burden of constraint
does not assume a sacrifice or absolute resignation. It is much closer to
dispositions giving chance to comply various functions – social, environmental,
economic – such as Aristotelian restraint, moderation or sustainability. Hence,
the constraint postulate may be treated as a rule of conduct aiming for fining a
proper measure for the homo sapiens – natural environment relation. So the
Iwona Stachowska
13
readiness to limit the practices endangering the social and environmental
tissue would be located between hyper-consumerism and radical resignation,
extreme anthropocentrism subordinating nature to human goals and radical
anti-humanism, according to which, as Latouche irreverently comments
“suspected of seeing the survival of cockroaches as more important than that
of human beings” (Latouche 2009, p. 97).
A degrowth developmental model proposed by Latouche, just like the
one developed by Jackson with the accompanying principle of constraint, is
based on two ethical pillars – the concern with the contemporary and future
human well-being, and the care for the natural environment. The two thinkers
see a necessary relationship between the existence of the humankind and the
state of nature that conditions that existence. They are also aware that this
relationship is justified and evaluated in many various ways. In the case of the
extremely anthropological option the strictly service potential of the natural
environment comes to the forefront, and the environment is understood
exclusively as a relative value (“good for someone” or “good for something”)
and is entirely subjugated to human goals. In contrast, the biocentric model
recognises in nature an absolute value that requires respect. Searching for an
ethical justification for the importance of self-constraint, and broader, for
degrowth the French researcher underlines: “Like all ecologists, advocates of
de-growth are suspected of rejecting the anthropocentrism of the
Enlightenment tradition in favour of an unwavering ecocentrism and, therefore,
of supporting a form of deep ecology that takes an ‘anti-speciesist’ stance. (…)
Between the extremes of the blind or dogmatic anthropocentrism of Western
modernity and the animist worship of nature, there is probably room for an
eco-anthropocentrism. The very survival of humanity, and therefore of
humanism in what we might call the true sense of that term, means that
ecological concerns must be a central part of our social, political, cultural and
spiritual preoccupation with human life” (Latouche 2009, pp. 97, 103).
However, Latouche would not be ready to call the degrowth programme
humanism: “In my view, de-growth, in the sense that it provides the
philosophical foundations for a project for an autonomous society, is probably
not a humanism because it is based upon a critique of development, growth,
progress, technology and, ultimately, modernity and because it implies a break
with Western centralism” (Latouche 2009, p. 99).
The proposed by Latouche eco-anthropocentrism on the axiological
level leans towards the signalised already moderately anthropological
perspective that sees in nature both an autotelic value, as well as a service
potential. Its character is impeccably recognised by Ryszard Wiśniewski. While
undertaking an axiological reflection on eco-philosophy, Wiśniewski sets out a
claim, which the French economist would probably agree with: “The world of
values is a human world and from the perspective of this world, if one
understands their own roots, they must accept nature as a bearer of absolute
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
14
value equal the one of human life. It is one and the same axiological level that
encompasses the biosphere (nature), life of individuals (personal dimension),
and the existence of the species (community dimension). This axiological level
is both, objective, and relative, but absolute, upon which are built values
defined as spiritual, or maybe more precisely, cultural” (Wiśniewski 2015, p.
804).
The evoked remarks of axiological and ethical nature show that the
degrowth programme, and in particular the supporting sustainable endeavours
for the natural environment protection postulate of constraint, find their
completion and justification in the environmental ethics. The luggage of
protected values, preferred attitudes and desired behaviours in both cases is
confluent (see: Tyburski 2011, pp. 85-157).
Piotr Krajewski, among other writers, also draws the attention to that
similarity. In his article Justice and Accountability as a Basis for Sustainable
Development – the Case of International Environmental Law he proposes to
understand the environmental ethics as an ethics of constraint, i.e. “the choice
and willingness not to abuse available resources. This ethics consists of
accountability and respect for future generations which also have right to
inherit the environment that fits for life and that provides opportunities for
development” (Krajewski 2013, p. 15). Unfortunately, apart from that opinion,
Krajewski does not develop his though any further and leaves unsatisfied
yearning in regard to the supposed identity of the environmental ethics with
the ethics of constraint. However, adopting even a weaker version of their
mutual links, it is not difficult to see that the constraint postulate that is
formulated within the socio-politico-economic degrowth project is an integral
part of considerations taking place in the sphere of the environmental ethics
but it does not fully cover all its problems. Within the framework of the
environmental ethics the postulate of constraint mainly takes form of an
efficient tool supporting eco-philosophical goals; it is treated as a means
leading to make the practices affecting the natural environment more
sustainable – reduction of anthropogenic pollution that is the source of the
climate change, or driving down the behaviours that threaten the biosphere.
In conclusion, “a readiness to self-constraint” is a disposition at the
base of which there are: firstly, the awareness of the human impact on their
natural surroundings, including responsibility for the undertaken actions, or for
those we restrain from; secondly, a recognition of the ethical dimension of the
human being – nature relation, and hence giving the natural environment an
absolute value; and finally, thirdly, the will to include nature into the scope of
moral concern motivated by both, the wish to maintain the existence and
secure the welfare of both, the human population, and nature as such.
Iwona Stachowska
15
5. Summary
Instead of coherent conclusions closing these considerations there will be a
bunch of doubts and questions we should confront against when arguing for
the culture of constraint.
Firstly, we should notice that the postulate of constraint that is an
alternative for unsustainable consumerism and exceeding exploitation of the
natural environment is an exchange of one form of limitations for the other.
The degrowth project stemming from the awareness and respect for ecological
limits tries to overcome the existing institutional and social limitations; it
advocates freedom from consumption, from manipulation of our needs and
desires. However, it always transpires at the expense, to some extent, of the
freedom of choice and individual autonomy, i.e. limiting one’s own needs, the
necessity of reasonable using the goods, and hence, limiting one’s one comfort.
These are costs that are reluctantly incurred individually and supra-
individually, which have to be taken into account when considering the chances
and obstacles for carrying out the degrowth project.
Secondly, it is worthy to notice that implementation of new,
revolutionary ideas and projects, regardless how noble and necessary they
could be, runs a risk of lack of understanding, misinterpretation, or distortion of
their assumptions. Constraint requires in that matter extreme carefulness. For,
there is a fine line between constrained as a free-choice situation (self-
constraint) from constraint that becomes oppression. This threat is even more
justified because degrowth is not only a socio-moral strategy, but also a
politico-economic one that requires support and involvement of authorities.
Falling into the trap of paternalism is very plausible here (see: Szahaj 2016)
and limitations incompetently imposed by the government, institutions, and
the public opinion can transform sustainable, degrowth solutions into their
negative opposite, and in consequence slow down or rule out the social change.
Latouche is well aware of that fact. Therefore he refuses to submerge the
degrowth project into the politico-electoral narration, and on that account
hijacking it by political parties (Latouche 2009, pp. 95-96).
The most serious issue however is the decision to whom the constraint
postulate should apply, and to what extent. The differences on the global, nation
state, and local levels, such as the degree of the environment degradation,
overpopulation, or problems in access to food, health care or education show
that the imperative of constraint cannot be universally employed as a binding
rule. In spite of the fact that it guards universal values (life, health, common
good), the postulate is not a universal solution. If we deal with a lack of
possibility to address the basic needs, there is nothing to limit. Therefore, it is
difficult to give it a form of a goal shared on the transnational and transcultural
level (although it should be noted that the problems such as climate change
require a coherent, transnational low-emissions policy). This is the reason why
voices present in the discussion on constraint are mainly directed towards the
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
16
strongly economically developed countries (see: Latouche 2009, pp. 56-63;
Jackson 2011). Constraint appears there in the context of ensuring equal
opportunities, repayment of the ecological debt by the developed countries of
the North to the countries of the South, or reducing social inequalities. Andrzej
Papuziński referring to the opinion of Edith Brown-Weiss stresses that intra-
and inter-generational justice imposes on affluent societies the obligation to
support poor societies and social groups in the access to the global wealth, to
the common civilization and natural heritage. Moreover, these countries should
also pay the costs of implementation of pro-ecological policy in the world
(Papuziński 2014, pp. 24-25). According to Papuziński, it does not mean
however that “the developing countries should be provided with the same
chances for economic growth as the contemporary prosperous North had in
the past when it accumulated its wealth without caring for the environmental
outcomes of its economic activities” (Papuziński 2014, p. 15). In a similar
manner, both Latouche and Jackson amicably emphasise that the countries of
the South need an economic growth, but such that will allow them to avoid the
traps the highly developed countries have fallen into. If developing countries are
not to become slaves of material comfort, it is necessary for them to affirm
their autonomy and moving towards self-sufficiency. Therefore, the degrowth
project should be tailored to their needs. Limitation of the consumption,
growth, exploitation of resources is not, in their case, essential path, although
its implementation in the developed countries provides a chance for carrying
out an alternative model in the countries of the South. Latouche characterises
this model in the following way: “If we dare to implement de-growth in the
South, we can attempt to trigger a spiral moment that will bring us into the
orbit of the virtuous circles of the three ‘R’s, such as Rompre [break], Renew,
Rediscover, Reintroduce Recuperate, and so on. Break away from economic and
cultural dependency on the North. Renew contact with the thread of a history
that was interrupted by colonization, development and globalization.
Rediscover and reappropriate the cultural identity of the South. Reintroduce
specific products that have been forgotten or abandoned, and ‘anti-economic’
values that are bund up with the past of these countries. Recuperate traditional
technologies and skills” (Latouche 2009, p. 58).
Considering the choice of constraint as a contemporary moral postulate,
and at the same time a socio-cultural, political and economic necessity, it is
worthwhile to take into account the signalised traps. The sketched doubts
should not scare off but rather encourage more careful and critical observation
of the postulate of constraint that occupies increasingly significant place in
sociology, economy, political science, and ethics, particularly environmental
ethics.
Iwona Stachowska
17
References
Ariés, P. 2005. Décroissance ou barbarie. Villeurbanne: éditions Golias.
Bauman, Z. 2015. “O przemijaniu trwania”. In K. Kuligowska & C. Obracht–
Prondzyński (eds.) Śmieć w kulturze. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
Katedra.
Ciążela, H. 2015. “Wokół biologii, ekonomii, moralności. Miejsce Thomasa
Roberta Malthusa w historii etyki”. In P. Domeracki, A. Grzeliński, & R.
Wiśniewski (eds.) Filozofia–Etyka–Ekologia. Profesorowi
Włodzimierzowi Tyburskiemu w darze (pp. 491–499). Toruń:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
EEA Signals. 2009. “Key environmental issues facing Europe”. URL:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/signals-2009 (retrieved on
22.12.2015)
Elgin, D. & A. Michell. 1977. “Voluntary Simplicity.” The Co-Evolution Quarterly,
Vol. Summer: 1–40.
Gorz, A. 1994. Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology. London: Verso.
Hall, C. A. S. & J. W. Day. 2009. “Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil.”
American Scientist, Vol. 97: 230-237.
Harrdin, G. 1968. “The Tragedy of Commons.” Science, Vol. 162: 1243–1248.
Helm, D. 2009. Environmental Challenges in a Warming World: Consumption,
Costs and Responsibilites. Oxford: New College.
Hull, Z. 2003. “Wartości ekologiczne dla zrównoważonego rozwoju”. In A
Pawłowski (ed) Filozoficzne i społeczne uwarunkowania
zrównoważonego rozwoju. Warszawa: Monografie Komitetu Inżynierii
Środowiska.
Hull, Z. 2008. “The Philosophical and Social Conditioning of Sustainable
Development.” Problemy Ekorozwoju Vol. 3: 27–31.
Jackson, T. 2005. “Live Better by Consuming Less? Is There a «Double Dividend»
in Sustainable Consumption?” Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 9: 19–
36.
Jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet.
London: Earthscan Press.
Jackson, T. 2011. “Żelazna klatka konsumpcjonizmu”. Instytut Obywatelski
30.09.2011. URL: http://www.instytutobywatelski.pl/2687/lupa-
instytutu/zelazna-klatka-konsumpcjonizmu (retrieved on 22.01.2016)
Krajewski, P. 2013. “Justice and Accountability as a Basis for Sustainable
Development – the Case of International Environmental Law.” Problemy
Ekorozwoju, Vol. 7: 15–31.
Krall, H. 2015. “Było dużo niepokoju.” In M. Nogaś (ed) Z najwyższej półki. URL:
http://www.polskieradio.pl/9/874/Artykul/1489430,Hanna-Krall-
bylo-duzo-niepokoju (retrieved on 22.12.2105).
Kronenberg, J. & N. Iida. 2011. “Simple Living and Sustainable Consumption.”
Problems of Sustainable Development, Vol. 2: 67–74.
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
18
Latouche, S. 2003. “Absurdité du productivisme et des gaspillages. Pour une
société de décroissance”. Le Monde Diplomatique, Vol. Novembre.
Latouche, S. 2004. “Contre l’ethnocentrisme du développement. Et la
décroissance sauvera le Sud...”. Le Monde Diplomatique, Vol. Novembre.
Latouche, S. 2005. “Vers la décroissance. Écofascisme ou écodémocratie”. Le
Monde Diplomatique, Vol. Novembre.
Latouche, S. 2007. “Petit traité de la décroissance sereine”. Paris: Mille et Une
Nuits.
Latouche, S. 2009. Farewell to Growth. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Malthus, T.R. 2003. Prawo ludności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo De Agostini.
Meadows, D., J. Rander, & W. W. Behrens III. 1972. The Limits to Growth. A report
to the Clube of Rome. New York: Univers Books.
Meadows, D., J. Randers, & D. Meadows. 2004. Limits to Growth: the 30-Year
Update. London: Earthscan.
Norton, B. G. 2005. Sustainability. A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem
Managment. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Olson, M. & H. H. Landsberg. 1973. The No-Growth Society. New York: Norton &
Company.
Papuziński, A. 2013. “The Axiology of Sustainable Development: An Attempt at
Typologization.” Problems of Sustainable Development, Vol. 8: 5–25.
Papuziński, A. 2014. “Sustainable Development in the Context of the Theory of
Intergenerational Justice. An Attempt to Specify a Problem.” Studies in
Global Ethics and Global Education, Vol. 2: 12–27.
Popkiewicz, M. 2012. Świat na rozdrożu. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Sonia Draga.
SDC. 2003. Redefining Prosperity. London: Sustainable Development Commision.
URL: http://www.sd-
commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/030627%20Redefining%2
0prosperity,%20resource%20productivity.pdf (retrieved on
22.12.2015).
SDC. 2011. Know your environmental limits. A local leaders’ guide. London:
Sustainable Development Commision. URL: http://www.sd-
commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/know_your_env_limits1.pdf
(retrieved on 22.12.2015).
Stern, N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stern, N. 2010. Globalny ład. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej.
Szahaj, A. 2016. “Napędzanie konsumpcji, czyli jak wielki biznes ogranicza
naszą wolność”. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna z dn. 16.01.2016. URL:
http://forsal.pl/artykuly/916688,napedzanie-konsumpcji-czyli-jak-
wielki-biznes-ogranicza-nasza-wolnosc.html (retrieved on 22.01.
2016).
Turner, G. 2008. A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of
Reality. CSIRO. Vol. June. URL:
Iwona Stachowska
19
hhht://ecsim.org/Vista/archivos/TURNER%20G%20-
%20TLG%2030%20years%20comparison%20to%20reality.pdf
(retrieved on 22.12.2015).
Tyburski, W. 2011. Etyka środowiskowa i jej wkład w budowanie świadomości
sprzyjającej wdrażaniu idei zrównoważonego rozwoju In Tyburski, W.
(ed) Zasady kształtowania postaw sprzyjających wdrażaniu
zrównoważonego rozwoju (pp. 85–157). Toruń: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
UNEP. 2011. “Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts
from Economic Growth.” United Nations Environment Programme. URL:
http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/decoupling/files/pdf/
Decoupling_Report_English.pdf (retrieved on 22.15.2015).
Weber, M. 1987. Polityka jako zawód i powołanie. Warszawa: Niezależna
Oficyna Wydawnicza.
Weitzman, M. L. 2007. A Review of “The Stern Review of the Economics of
Climate Change.” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLV: 703–724.
Wiśniewski, R. 2015. “Aksjologia ekologii”. In P. Domeracki, A. Grzeliński, & R.
Wiśniewski (eds.) Filozofia–Etyka–Ekologia. Profesorowi
Włodzimierzowi Tyburskiemu w darze (pp. 793–806). Toruń:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
WWF. 2006. Living Planet Report 2006. URL:
http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/living_planet_report
.pdf (retrieved on: 22.12.2015)
Constraint as an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
20
Iwona Stachowska
(The Maria Grzegorzewska University in Warsaw, ivsta@wp.pl)
Constraint As an Ethical Postulate in the Context of Ecological Limits
Abstract. The problem of natural resources being finite as well as
the capability of ecosystems and the biosphere to assimilate the
effects of economic activity on the one hand, and growing economic
discrepancies on the other raise a question mark over the chase after the
unrestrained economic growth. In the search for alternative models of
thinking and development a significant role of constraint is being more and
more emphasized. In the case of ecological barriers limitation of using non-
renewable resources, greenhouse gases emissions, excessive consumption
and production seems to be a reasonable strategy that manifests our care
for the natural environment.
The aim of the paper is to demonstrate that the postulate of constraint
present in the de-growth model in the form proposed by Tim Jackson
and Serge Latouche apart from a quantitative dimension has, above all, a
qualitative and ethically orientated dimension. Constraint conceived in the
above way stays close to terms like moderation, restraint, sustainability, i.e.
such terms that possess solid ethical foundations and constitute an
important base for environmental ethics.
Keywords: limitation, ecological constraint, degrowth, environmental ethics
Ethics in Progress (ISSN 2084-9257). Vol. 7 (2016). No. 1, Art. #2, pp. 01–20.
doi: 10.14746/eip.2016.1.1
