We could lead more fulfilling lives by slowing down the rate of technological progress
George Monbiot asks whether I and other advocates of a more land-based economy are "really proposing that we do without [industrial goods] altogether" (Let's face it: none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking project, 3 May).
The short answer is no. There are a few primitivists who do advocate this, but I am not one of them. "Most of those who advocate an off-grid, land-based economy have made no provision for manufactures," says Monbiot. That is a fair point, but it doesn't negate the fact that we could drastically reduce industrial production in wealthy countries without undermining human wellbeing; indeed people might lead more fulfilling lives if they consumed less.
The most obvious way of cutting production is to make things to higher standards. If everything were made to last twice as long then we would only need to make half as much of it. This requires us to slow down the rate of technological progress so that goods (and humans) do not become functionally obsolescent so quickly.
Monbiot asks how we would find "the energy required to make bricks, glass, metal tools and utensils, textiles … ceramics and soap". Take bricks: for several years I lived in a cob house – built in 1911 from rammed unbaked earth – which was warm and delightful. I have also made unfired bricks with a device called a block ram, and 30 years later they are weathering fine.
Half of Britain sits on a limitless supply of building stone, which was formerly extracted from harmless village quarries without any assistance from fossil fuels, but which now is inaccessible because of planning restrictions. The use of cob and local stone would mean building slower and hence less – that would be a good thing. In any case, if we cut industrial production by half there would be plenty of bricks and other material to recycle from redundant factories.
As for textiles, it is plain from the charity shops that grace every high street that we suffer from a glut of clothing, while the wool from 15 million sheep is almost valueless.
Reducing consumption of goods is not a recipe for abject poverty. Half the world still lives without superabundance, but where there is misery it is because of lack of food, water, simple medicines and adequate shelter – not because of a shortage of cheap T-shirts, factory-fired bricks, or 17 varieties of cleaning product. If we consumed less in the wealthy countries there would be resources and energy available for people who really are suffering.
Monbiot's question was posed within the context of his recent conversion to nuclear power. Though I could probably be persuaded to accept a small amount of it if we significantly reduced our consumption of global resources at the same time, Monbiot's stance in these articles sends the wrong message. By advocating nuclear power without making clear that the overarching requirement is for people in industrialised countries to reduce consumption, Monbiot suggests that there are techno-fixes that will allow us to go on extracting the world's resources at an ever accelerating rate – and that is both unsustainable and undesirable.