Belated thanks for the comments - I'm feeling a bit too thinly spread across cyberspace and IRL at the moment! - but they're appreciated. Quick answer to Greg, my understanding is that in some - not all - instances, the MST tried to impose collective rather than household-based farming structures, which prompted grassroots resistance from members. That said, it also tapped a lot of cooperation and collective political energy.
I’m sure your comments are helpful to R&B, they are young, ambitious academics trying to carve career paths. Like you I prefer Tyson Yunkaporta’s messy position, there should never be black and white answers, life is entangled and complex. Trying to lead land based lifestyles is complex and difficult and most people don’t have time for theory. The farmers and growers I meet however do seem happy and bucolic to me, despite the difficulties in this way of life. What is wrong with that?! We can all have much better connected, fullfilling lives once we start to understand the importance of creating life giving systems (and that life gives us the food and fibre we need).
Whilst trying to reconcile these demands, I started to see that the various political "debates" that emanate from these various demands invariably co-exist within an overarching anthropocentric (human-centric) frame of reference. At least to varying degrees.
These competing demands I think sets up an awful lots of inter-human-centric competition across various policy debates which perhaps unconsciously serves to reinforce anthropocentrism, especially when avoiding, deflecting or arguing over the inseparable yin yang dynamic between (human population and human consumption, otherwise known as population ecology.
However, perhaps one thing that unites all the different policy perspectives above is the need to protect our ecological life support systems and in particular, protect Nature from the human species.
In this respect, perhaps this endeavour would be more achievable if humans were to grant biotic life in general the same legal rights afforded to humans with the aim of shifting attention away from inter-human-centric competition and towards a value shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism with the hope of creating long term biospheric sustainability for future generations.
No doubt the attempted realisation of ecocentrism will also descend into inter-human-centric competition but at least this competition (over biotic and abiotic life forms) might be better resolved if participants are forced to limit their expectations using ecocentrism and the granting of equal moral (and legal) worth towards other biotic lifeforms.
Thus rather than agrarian localism or agrarian populism we might instead conceptualise an ecocentric agrarianism.
In relation to other heterodox (or unorthodox) perspectives, we could instead conceptualise ecocentric degrowth rather than radical degrowth. Ecocentric economic modelling instead of anthropocentric economic modelling, an ecocentric energy transition and an ecocentric commons.
The point being that perhaps we need to highlight ecocentrism as a means to unify and synthesise various heterodox positions rather than unwittingly descend into the black hole of inter-human-centric competition with little hope of escape.
Belated thanks for the comments - I'm feeling a bit too thinly spread across cyberspace and IRL at the moment! - but they're appreciated. Quick answer to Greg, my understanding is that in some - not all - instances, the MST tried to impose collective rather than household-based farming structures, which prompted grassroots resistance from members. That said, it also tapped a lot of cooperation and collective political energy.
I’m sure your comments are helpful to R&B, they are young, ambitious academics trying to carve career paths. Like you I prefer Tyson Yunkaporta’s messy position, there should never be black and white answers, life is entangled and complex. Trying to lead land based lifestyles is complex and difficult and most people don’t have time for theory. The farmers and growers I meet however do seem happy and bucolic to me, despite the difficulties in this way of life. What is wrong with that?! We can all have much better connected, fullfilling lives once we start to understand the importance of creating life giving systems (and that life gives us the food and fibre we need).
Another interesting piece that sets out your perspective much more clearly I think.
Currently I am trying to reconcile the demands of
* radical degrowth
https://degrowthuk.org/2025/05/31/degrowth-a-dead-end-or-the-way-out-capitals-future-scam/
* entropy economics (thermodynamic based economic analysis)
https://open.substack.com/pub/profstevekeen/p/comments-on-entropy-economics-by?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=al84p
* (or alternatively) ecological/energy economics
https://open.substack.com/pub/profstevekeen/p/the-role-of-energy-in-economics?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=al84p
* (the resulting) real world economic contraction as the energy/material costs of energy production and material goods production increases
https://open.substack.com/pub/gailtverberg/p/economic-contraction-coming-right?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=al84p
* (the) small farm future based on agroecology and low impact living
https://open.substack.com/pub/chrissmaje/p/root-and-branch?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=al84p
* (whilst trying to) self provision from a more mutualist commons model of ownership to fulfill a wider spectrum of basic needs
https://www.lowimpact.org/
Whilst trying to reconcile these demands, I started to see that the various political "debates" that emanate from these various demands invariably co-exist within an overarching anthropocentric (human-centric) frame of reference. At least to varying degrees.
These competing demands I think sets up an awful lots of inter-human-centric competition across various policy debates which perhaps unconsciously serves to reinforce anthropocentrism, especially when avoiding, deflecting or arguing over the inseparable yin yang dynamic between (human population and human consumption, otherwise known as population ecology.
https://www.ujecology.com/articles/population-ecology-understanding-the-dynamics-of-life-in-numbers-102099.html#:~:text=The%20dynamics%20of%20a%20population,of%20economic%20or%20ecological%20importance
However, perhaps one thing that unites all the different policy perspectives above is the need to protect our ecological life support systems and in particular, protect Nature from the human species.
In this respect, perhaps this endeavour would be more achievable if humans were to grant biotic life in general the same legal rights afforded to humans with the aim of shifting attention away from inter-human-centric competition and towards a value shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism with the hope of creating long term biospheric sustainability for future generations.
No doubt the attempted realisation of ecocentrism will also descend into inter-human-centric competition but at least this competition (over biotic and abiotic life forms) might be better resolved if participants are forced to limit their expectations using ecocentrism and the granting of equal moral (and legal) worth towards other biotic lifeforms.
Thus rather than agrarian localism or agrarian populism we might instead conceptualise an ecocentric agrarianism.
In relation to other heterodox (or unorthodox) perspectives, we could instead conceptualise ecocentric degrowth rather than radical degrowth. Ecocentric economic modelling instead of anthropocentric economic modelling, an ecocentric energy transition and an ecocentric commons.
The point being that perhaps we need to highlight ecocentrism as a means to unify and synthesise various heterodox positions rather than unwittingly descend into the black hole of inter-human-centric competition with little hope of escape.
Steve Gwynne
#UnityandDiversity
🌍🏞️👪🦉🐟🦋🌱💗
What’s the MST done to families? (Genuine question)
Lovely lucid piece this too btw!!
Im so grateful for your writing!