
I recently came across this “Doughnut Economics” diagram. It’s interesting, and suggests a minimum set of resources required for humanity and maximum before the environment is depleted. There is an implicit assumption that the doughnut space is positive and real. But I am not convinced that it is.
Just as a thought experiment, what if the Social Foundation exceeds the Ecological Ceiling. What is necessary for humanity is more than the environment can actually handle over the long run. What is the normative ask implied here: Are we supposed to give up and die?
In particular, while some of the environmental threshold can be probably be dealt with (even Climate Change),1 others are sort of in the “too hard” bucket. Biodiversity continues to be lost, as it has been for tens of thousands of years. (Remember the megafauna ? … No, well your ancestors killed them before they settled down and became farmers).2 And we don’t seem to be doing anything about it. In that case, there is no “safe and just space for humanity” consistent with an ecological ceiling, at least not here on Earth.
I said can, not will, at least not without some form of geoengineering, what could go wrong?
I like the idea of restoring extinct species, what could go wrong?
Well maybe we should be doing something about it! Also this social foundation is not the same for the 1% then it is for low 10%.