3.4 Promoting Subversive Innovation

Incrementally implemented innovation (that which is added to what exists already) will generate a minor form of change while radical innovation will cause a major disruption allowing us to define new avenues for living together that are social (organizing human activity such as work), biological (commensalism) or material (adding materials or a new organization of materials) in nature.

Extractivism and neoextractivism
While classical extractivism has been defended as being a means of economic growth, justifications for neoextractivism are often social in nature. In fact, governments argue that the State must intervene to maintain and intensify extractivism as a means of obtaining the financial resources necessary to implement poverty-reducing plans and programs. The novelty of the large number of these programs lies in the fact that they target the most impoverished sectors. While revenues obtained from exploiting extractive sectors have various targets, the discourse around legitimizing extractive actions frequently relies on the financing of social measures. Neoextractivism does not offer better social or environmental practices than classical extractivism, at least for now. Thus, insofar as the ecological impacts of these practices persist, citizens will denounce them, which in certain cases, has become large-scale protests. Governments deny or minimize these impacts, or they assert the need to accept them as indispensable to maintaining development. They ask local, directly affected communities to sacrifice themselves for what is presented as public interest, without questioning the consequences of this kind of development. According to Gudynas, Eduardo (2011). Más allá del nuevo extractivismo : transiciones sostenibles y alternativasal desarrollo. In Fernanda Wanderley, coordinadora, El desarrollo en cuestión. Reflexiones desde América Latina, La Paz, Oxfam y CIDES UMSA, p. 388. Translated (French) and synthesized by Juan-Luis Klein.

Let’s not forget that all innovations, whether they are incremental or radical, can have a positive or negative impact on the ‘social or environmental footprint’ that we generate both individually and collectively. In other words, in order to ensure that the guiding principles of a civilizational order can truly innovate with the aim of reducing our social and ecological footprint, at least two conditions must be met.

On the one hand, having ‘filters’ that respect the principles and values put forth and promoted by the target horizon and the great narrative.
On the other hand, taking a holistic approach where proposed innovations and projected changes must be judged or evaluated from the perspective of their integration in the ensemble of the institutions proper to the new civilizational order.

A Regenerative Economy
Many environmental economists have integrated the concept of a regenerative economy into their discourse. The principles of this approach date back to the work of Bill Mollison on permaculture in 1978 (Mang, P., & Haggard, B., Regenesis, 2016). The Australian ecologist modified the conventional agricultural model, taking inspiration from the relationships and processes of natural ecosystems. This “permanent” agriculture generates the required crops for society all while producing a surplus of resources, thus regenerating the earth. Bill Mollison defined the principle of regeneration as “generating a surplus of energy and resources that can be reinvested in order to develop the natural and human resources in an integrated manner.” (Mang, P., & Haggard, B., Regenesis, 2016). This principle was then taken up by several ecologists in the 90s, who merged the terms regeneration, ecosystems and sustainability. The regenerative economy model is based on a biomimetic vision of natural systems, which prosper only because they have the capacity to self regenerate, just as the cells of our bodies regenerate every seven years (Fullerton, 2015). It is thus this capacity for regeneration that gives the human body’s longevity. By this logic, sustainability is the result of regeneration as opposed to the goal. Thus, to achieve a sustainable economic system, societies must base themselves on a regenerative model (Fullerton, 2015). (Lanctot, Jean-Philippe (2019), Identification des outils permettant la régénération de l’environnement dans les stratégies d’affaires des entreprises québécoises, Sherbrooke, Université de Sherbrooke, Master’s in Environment, p. 4) Regenerative economy, as defined in this essay, is a critique of society’s incorrect vision of sustainable development. It demonstrates that achieving net-zero impact in terms of environmental pollution and social externalities, as is the target of sustainable development, will not sufficiently support the survival of humanity. The support capacity of ecosystems has been considerably ravaged by human activity, which has prevented them from naturally regenerating. Sustainable development in future societies must therefore go beyond net-zero goals by regenerating ecosystems. A regenerative economy can be achieved notably by applying ten basic actions spread over five pillars : a natural economy, a vision for wealth, social equality, a local economy and a circular economy. This essay demonstrates the fact that businesses have a fundamental role in this environmental turnaround, as they are greatly responsible for the degradation of ecosystems. (Ibid., p. 58)

It is under these conditions that positive-impact innovation grounded in institutionally based logic will be able to fully facilitate the transition from one economic model to another.

As the proposition of the Climate Justice Alliance¹ can attest, ensuring the emancipation of a dominant civilizational model that we want to leave behind (extractive economy, for example) and allowing for the emergence of a new model founded on a regenerative economy will require subversive cultural filters.

For the Climate Justice Alliance, this proposition for a transition is called to be deployed based on a six-point strategy.

Fight the Bad : shut down extractive structures and deconstruct the institutional ecosystem of an extractive economy.
Build the New : develop a new economic ecosystem centered on socially and ecologically responsible regenerative institutions.
Change the Rules : re-invent or generate rules needed to facilitate the transition process.
Move the Money :redirect the extractive economy’s capital reserves in order to sustain the regenerative economy’s activities and jobs.
Build the Bigger We : start a world movement around the transition project.
Change the Story : bring a new narrative to the forefront that contains stories illustrating the validity of the in-depth transformations that must occur.

It will also be important to re-engage with progressive cultural world heritage to revive innovations that have historically been cast aside due to their emancipatory subversiveness². This would free up the collective imagination and creativity to support a great realignment of the foundations of living well together in the form of emancipatory cultural orientations that boast new ethics and aesthetics.

Notes

1
See : https://climatejusticealliance.org/about/.
2
The Anarcho-indigenism movement has proposed a way of working that aligns with this approach. See Dupuis-Déri, F. et B. Pillet (s.l.d.) (2019). L’anarcho-indigénisme. Montréal, Lux Éditeur.