Weeping as I write

I weep as I write.

Surfers surfing, walkers walking and
 people enjoying the good life.

It is a beautiful day; surfers are surfing, swimmers are swimming, people are walking everywhere, the local coffee shops and cafes are packed with those simply celebrating the good weather and the equally good life.

This is the good life, at least that which the modern marketers tell us is the good life, and it is the rich life, something that is the epitome of our growth and consumerist-based economy.

It has been achieved because of our rapacious approach to all that allows humans to prosper. Sadly, and confusingly, it is a lifestyle I love, but it is one that is entirely unsustainably.

It is urgent, well beyond urgent, that we re-think what it is we do; re-imagine our way of life; seek a new way to access joy; re-structure and re-shape our communities to allow them to become emboldened with happiness the resilience and within that understand that contentment is to be found through working with, helping and encouraging your fellows, family and friends, rather than pursuing a life foundered on the exploitation of finite resources and making “presentism” the root of all activities.

Saving the planet is irrelevant as it is fine for no matter what we do, it will go on, the real issue is about saving ourselves, or at least preserving the conditions that are conducive to human survival.

Nature always looks to achieve equilibrium, but in dumping inordinate amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we have disrupted its bid for equilibrium and it will achieve that no matter what – storms, droughts, and major weather events we cannot yet understand.

The lifestyle we lead and the one I weep for is open to us because of our wealth; a richness that has allowed us to service our wants rather than simply our needs.

Working fewer hours each day (work in the modern and traditional understanding of work) is an anathema to any economist trained in the growth/consumerist/profit paradigm, but it is the most obvious first step in any move to abate the impacts of climate change.

Should we have fewer grounds for exchange (money) we will have no option but to turn to our fellows for support and within that build stronger and more resilient communities.

By Robert McLean

George Monbiot supports Four-Hour Work Day concept



George Monbiot.

Guardian columnist, George Monbiot, is a supporter of the Four-Hour Work Day, well, not in practice, but his philosophies seem to align with the concept.

In his latest piece - How “Sustainability” Became “Sustained Growth” – published in the Guardian newspaper discusses the mangled results of the Rio Earth Summit.

“The Rio Declaration rips up the basic principles of environmental action,” he says in a column published on June 22.

Monbiot’s observations about growth are aligned with the fundamentals of the Four-Hour Work Day.

A greedy individualistic few will disrupt the idea of the Four-Hour Work Day

The greed and individualism of a few will disrupt, slow and maybe make the introduction of the Four-Hour Work Day and impossibility.

Greed and individualism is
unbalancing the world.

Any switch to that new way of working and living a hitherto unseen, and probably utopian broad and encompassing, swathe of altruism.

Endless calls for research, reports and other time-wasting distractions aimed at preserving what is and within that the lifestyles of those in the rich developed world – that’s pretty much anyone who can read this – blatantly ignores the critical state of the world, or at least a world that is habitable for humans.

The root of troubles confronting the world is, primarily, is that there is simply too many of us – there is presently in excess of seven billion people on earth, it was earlier estimated to increase to nine billion by 2050, but recent re-calculations put number closer to ten billion.

We are already in catastrophic consumptive overshoot and whether the number be nine or ten billion is somewhat irrelevant as the need to slow our consumption and use of energy has reached a level of urgency that can only be described as “critical”.

Introduction of the Four-Hour Work Day may seem dramatic, unnecessary and something of a knee-jerk reaction, but compared to the implications that will settle upon the world if we adhere to the business-as-usual mindset, it will appear inconsequential.

'We will not act to save the planet" - Herman Daly

Herman Daly is not confident humanity will act to save the planet.



Herman Daly.

Although he doubted we would come to our senses sufficiently to preserve conditions favourable to man, Daly does believe, however, there will be a shift in the composition of economic activity, ensuring it will become less damaging to values that are currently not priced in the marketplace.

Daly (born 1938) is an American ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of the University of Maryland, College Park, in the United States.

He was a senior economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank and helped develop guidelines for sustainable development and played a key role in the establishment of theories of a Steady State Economy.

Writing in the newly published “2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years” by Jorgen Randers, Daly, in a piece entitled “The End of Uneconomic Growth” and reflecting the forty years had passed since the “The Limits to Growth” had been published said:

Jorgen Randers
 new book.

“Well, it is now forty years later and economic growth is still the number-one policy goal of practically all nations; that is undeniable. Growth economists say that the “neo-Malthusians” were simply wrong, and that we should keep on growing as before. But I think economic growth has already ended that the growth that continues is now uneconomic; it costs more than it is worth at the margin and makes us poorer rather than richer. We still call it economic growth, or simply “growth” in the confused belief that growth must always be economic. I contend that we have reached the economic limit to growth, but we don’t know it, and desperately hide the fact by faulty national accounting, because growth is our idol and to stop worshipping it is anathema.”

A slowing economy helps abate climate change

Evidence that the slowing of the world’s economy will help abate climate change is on the record.

The 2008-09 GFC not only
 took the economy through
 the floor, but it also had
 a noticably impact on
slowing carbon dioxide
emissions.

The much discussed Global Financial Crisis (GFC) did many things, among them slow noticeably the world’s output of carbon dioxide.

With the world’s economy sliding into disarray in 2008-09, the world’s environmental sinks were given a breather as our consumption, of everything, dropped back in a measurable sense and people, certainly those in the developed countries, found new ways to maintain their “good life”.

The Four-Hour Work Day is similar to the GFC as its introduction will cause significant disruption, decided disarray and unimagined unease for some, but treated altruistically and honestly, it will ultimately be more life affirming for all, and, importantly kind to the earth, the only home we have.

Joshua's view reflect those of the Four-Hour Work Day

Joshua Funder.

Joshua Funder’s sentiments reflect somewhat the underlying concept of the Four-Hour Work Day.

The chairman of the Per Capita think tank wrote in today’s Age (June 13) that asking people to sacrifice a good life by working longer and harder for the sake of economic growth is morally unacceptable.

The story, headed: “Too high a price for economic growth”, ended with the observation that, “Quick fixes for economic growth are not the answer”.

Unintended consquences and unimaginable complexities

Unintended consequences of a magnitude and complexity exceeding our imagination will erupt from the introduction of the Four-Hour Work Day.

John D. Liu.

However, those consequences and their associated complexities will be insignificant and minuscule compared to troubles that await us we do something to counter and adapt to the absolutely unimaginable differences that will descend upon us because of human induced changes to the world’s climate.

The “business as usual” paradigm is a human response to all-encompassing capitalistic system that has swept all before it, including, as is now becoming obvious, the welfare of a host: the earth.

Considered free of emotional baggage, the human race is parasitic and any understanding of species illustrates, quite clearly, that the death of the host on which the parasite depends dies, the parasite follows soon after. Our world is not too healthy.

Senior research fellow International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), John D. Liu, writing in the newsletter of Sustainable Population Australia, said nature is warning us to stop.

“We currently face,” he wrote, “numerous challenges, including human-induced climate change, bio-diversity loss, large-scale deforestation, desertification, hunger, economic crisis, economic instability, migration, armed conflict, revolution and war”.

Commenting on this litany of sins, the founder of the Earth Policy Institute and the author of “Plan B 4.0”, Lester R. Brown, said: “We must go beyond lifestyle changes and change the system, or civilization will end”.

Lester R. Brown and his
 book "Plan B 4.0".

The switch to a Four-Hour Work Day is little more than the leading edge of the fundamental changes we must make to our economic structures if we are to adapt in any way, at all, to the inevitable changes that will soon descend up us.

The change is possible, but to do so we will need to employ the values of compassion, co-operation and altruism that homo-sapiens exhibited thousands of years ago as the migrated to every corner of the earth.

Can we do it? I believe we can, but it is going to force us to excavate a style of courage and commitment foreign to human behaviour.

New book endorses working fewer hours

Twenty actions for sustainability listed in a new book from the Melbourne Institute for Sustainability support the concept of working fewer hours.

The Melbourne Sustainable Society
 Institute's new book will be
 released June 14.

The three points listed under “What individuals can do” are: engage personally; own less; and reduce waste.

All those points are critical, but it is the final pair –own less and reduce waste – which are best achieved by fundamentally reducing our purchasing power and that will evolve over a relatively short time by making each of us, from the corporations though to the ordinary work, somewhat poorer.

Through have less dispensable income we will subsequently own less and because of that waste less.

The outcome of working a Four-Hour Work Day, no overtime or double shifts, will slow, dramatically, all consumption, both in terms of energy and the seemingly endless array of consumer goods created using finite resources,

That almost dictatorial reduction of the use of energy and goods might appear brutal, but beyond reducing human numbers to a sustainable level of about two billion (that’s a cut of about five billion) it is, without doubt, the most reasonable and humane way to adapt to our changing climate.

The new book, coming soon from the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute is, “2020 Vision for a Sustainable Society”, will be launched on 14 June, and will be available online shortly afterwards through the institute’s website.

A compilation of 26 chapters, the book is written by experts; among whom are distinguished professors, established non-fiction authors and even a Nobel Prize winner.

Each chapter identifies something that needs to change and selects one key action that is necessary in the next decade.

These actions are mostly set within the context of Australia and the Asia-Pacific, although they do have global relevance.

They are aimed at communities and government rather than individuals / households and the final chapter compiles these priority actions into a ‘to do’ list: key actions to be taken before 2020 to create a sustainable society.

Keynes was right about most things, but wrong about this

The idea of the Four-Hour Work Day is nothing new.

John Maynard Keynes - he imagined a
 steadily rising income would see us
 working 15-hours a week.

Something like that, but even more adventurous, was predicted in 1930 by iconic economist, John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes then believed that, within a century, per-capita income steadily rise, people’s basic needs would be met and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week.

Clearly Keynes was wrong: as he predicted per-capita income has steadily risen, easily accommodating basic needs in the developed world, but he misunderstood human psyche in that our wants vastly exceed what we actually need resulting in a society in a society that sates that addiction by working longer and longer hours.

Subsequently we have become financially rich, time destitute and striding seemingly unawares toward the abyss of a rapidly changing climate being brought upon us by the heedless consumption of energy using finite carbon dioxide producing fossil fuels, and the equally wasteful accumulation that depend on that same finite resource.

Both dynamics are driven by the fact that we are simply too rich and so should we be serious about climate change adaptation we will all happily work fewer hours, earn less money and so consume less and so use far less energy.

Queensland urban design expert, Juris Greste, once said we don’t live in an economy we live in a society.Show More

Show Less

Removal of penalty rates sits comfortably with working fewer hours

The present push for the removal of penalty rates for workers sits comfortably with the Four-Hour Work Day.

Children understand and enoy social
 interaction more than adults.

People can be asked to work any time of the day or night, on any day, for the same pay rate with the over-riding and incontrovertible conditions that they only work four hour shifts, no overtime, no double shifts and an absolute maximum of 20 hours a week.

The idea of work, certainly in the 20^th century and the early years of the 21^st, has become has become decidedly disjointed so much so that in the developed world it has become our “reason” precluding, at the expense of our general wellbeing, a more humane way of living.

That “more humane way of living” would allow us to exploit our natural sociality without the seemingly inexorable mercenary pressure and competitiveness that is common in the modern commercial world.

The underlying intensity of the modern business world runs counter in our psyche to the paradigm to the health, happiness and enjoyment, and freedom, a person needs to experience genuine fulfilment.

Work, of course, is important for a host of reasons, among them the sense of reason and purpose it gives a person, it allows for the creation of many things that society needs and, although biased, it enriches our social interaction.

The argument that we should work fewer hours each day and by implication each week, is fraught with challenges and difficulties, but the reason we should has an implacable ally – our behaviour is changing earth’s climate and to adapt to that we need to slow dramatically our consumption of energy-hungry goods.

To slice through human consumption we need to be in a position to spend less and working fewer hours each day, and by implication each week, will make us fundamentally poorer and so less able to be the consumers that the existing commercial world so urgently needs.

A genuine adaptation to climate change will never be easy, and nor will it be easy to adapt to the Four-Hour Work Day.

Our need to adapt to climate change is more pressing than most appreciate

Fred Guterl.

The need to adapt to climate change is more pressing than most in our community appear to appreciate.

The complications and implications of our changing climate will not, if not addressed in quick and decided fashion will bring upon humanity changes it is ill-equipped to address.

“Extinction” is a word that springs to mind and it is one that Fed Guterl has explored, but for different reasons, in his new book.

Guterl’s writing gives us reason to pause and consider.

Guterl, a senior editor at Newsweek International who directs the magazine’s coverage of science, technology, health, medicine and the environment,

“The Fate of the Species: Why the Human Race May Cause Its Own Extinction and How We Can Stop It” written by Guterl and published in May this year is both a thoughtful book and thought provoking.

Guterl considers extinctions and why they happened and early in the book says:

“Sometimes, though, change happens all at once, too quickly for species to adapt. Many biologists believe that is happening now. They believe that humans are changing the planet at a rate too quick for many of the planets’ species to keep up. Eventually, they fear, species will die off suddenly en-masse, triggering a cascade of extinctions, which could have a devastating effect on the planet’s intricate web of life. It’s the Large Blue phenomenon multiplied throughout all the ecosystems on the planet. It’s nature’s way of wiping the slate clean to begin again. It’s happened at least five times since life began on the planet about four billion years ago.

Man's inventions might be
 his eventual undoing.

“Is it happening now? The question is important because if the answer is yes, the likelihood that humans will survive is slim.”

One Amazon.com reviewer said: “There are many books out there discussing this topic, most of them in a very sensationalist and wildly exaggerating style. Luckily for me, this isn't the case here as the author sets a matter of fact tone which I was immediately taken with. Written in a conversational style and painting both vivid and plausible scenarios of what could happen, he takes the reader from super viruses past climate change straight to what he obviously sees as the most likely culprit of all - scientific and technological progress. Our own inventions as source and cause of our possible extinction might not sound quite as exciting as a meteor striking, but according to this survey it's scarily likely.

“Regrettably, it's the minutely detailed examples, highlighting present day research, which create an imbalance, sometimes long-winded enough to break up a chapter, and often reducing the fascinating question of what might happen to a mere afterthought. Another thing I found slightly unfortunate were the thoughts on solutions being pooled into the last chapter instead of complementing the individual chapters. A general conclusion would have been more fitting in my opinion”.

The reviewer concluded in saying: “In short: Technology as our downfall - an interesting excursion into what may cause the next mass extinction event on our planet!”

The implications of what Guterl discusses pretty much exceed the understanding and imagination of most, just as do the changes we must address if we are to adapt to climate change and one of the first steps in that adaptation program would be to introduce a Four-Hour Work Day.

Tax changes will help, but not truly allow us to adapt to climate change

Some see tax as the most
 appropriate way to adopt
to climate change.

Some argue the tax structure will allow us to adapt to the changes settling upon humanity because of climate change.

It will, it is argued, allow for an increased tax on those goods that are worsening climate change and along with that reduce, or eliminate, taxes on those things that do no damage our environment.

Considered with little more than cursory attention that makes absolute sense, but it overlooks, conveniently by some it might be said, some of the realities of modern life.

Historically wealthy people have paid the least amount of tax – an Australian multi-millionaire is on record as saying he doesn’t pay any tax – while those on the lower stratum of earner pay, proportionally, easily the most.

Climate change abatement will only be effective if everyone, from those at the pinnacle of the economic structure to those at those scrambling at the bottom contribute equally to what is, without question, the most significant difficulty humans have ever confronted.

Changes to the tax structure will, or course, have a broad impact, but not to any great extent upon the wealthy, the powerful and the decision makers who largely control what happens around the world.

The Four-Hour Work Day is littered with difficulties and unforeseen consequences, but beyond its prime purpose of creating a structure that will allow us to adapt to our changing climate, it will bring with it a clear sense, and reality, of equity.

The idea of equity is an interesting one that is celebrated by most when it is no more than lip-service or pleasant phrases, but it quickly falls from favour when its demands become reality and those who enjoy life’s fineries are asked to adjust their lifestyles to one more akin to those who fumble and stumble in a life built around exploitation.  

The idea of the Four-Hour Work Day is to make everyone fundamentally poorer and because of that slow, dramatically, our consumptive behaviours and that, naturally, becomes a natural climate change abatement program as almost immediately we begin living lives far less dependent on machines and processes that are worsening the world’s climate.

A beautiful spin-off of such a dynamic would be that those from the upper-echelons of the hierarchy of wealth suddenly have a much clearer and succinct understanding of how those from near, or at the bottom, of the financial pile live.

Utopian it might be, but maybe that practical familiarity might engender a certain bonding; a bonding that will illustrate that we are all in this together.

Climate change adaptation is not about fine words, it is not about changing a few light globes, it is not about returning to a bow-and-arrow-like life, rather it is about taking what we have learned and what we know and applying it with kindness to a different way of living and that begins with the introduction of the Four-Hour Work Day.