Thread by @jmkorhonen

While reading yet another book that made beautifully the case that the relentless pursuit of economic growth is destroying our planet, something clicked.

I understood why environmentalists should be at the forefront of helping #Ukraine and Ukrainians defend against predation. 1/

This may seem a far-fetched connection, so let me explain.

There is no lack of well-argued treatises pointing out that the pursuit of economic growth is now eating our world alive.

I agree. Prioritizing economic growth means that environmental goals cannot be priorities. 2/

Many environmental and #degrowth thinkers see the "growth imperative" as an ideological choice that benefits the rich. They also see the growth imperative as "baked in" to societal structures. That is correct.

But the problem is that isn't the whole truth.
3/

Economic growth is driven by many incentives and pressures. Greed is certainly one of them. But so is competition.

At the societal level, what might drive competition for economic resources?

Cicero summarized one key reason.

Nervus belli pecunia: money is the sinews of war. 4/

Greater capability to equip and maintain implements and implementers of war has almost certainly been one of the main reasons, if not THE reason, states arose in the first place.

Cooperation is power. Prevailing over aggressors who cooperate requires cooperative defense. 5/

The earliest proto-states probably crystallized around war parties and often did much to promote economic productivity and trade. This did benefit the elite, but it also provided the elite with greater resources to wage war.

Those with lesser resources risked being dominated. 6/

Much of history revolves around this competitive dynamic.

There have been exceptions: greater economic resources aren't a guarantee of military success. But exceptions to the rule are exceptions for a reason.

Take the Allied victory in the Second World War, for instance. 7/

There is no doubt whatsoever that the key reason the Allies and not Nazis won the war was that the immense economic might of the United States finally joined the still-considerable economic might of the British Empire with its overseas dominions.

The war was won in factories. 8/

This, by the way, brings us to the question of GDP growth.

WW 2 saw one of the earliest widespread uses of the statistic now known as Gross Domestic Product.

U.S. economists in particular used it to estimate the war-making capability of the U.S. and other countries. 9/

By using a variation of GDP, Gross National Product or GNP, economists could accurately predict how much war material the United States could produce - well before Pearl Harbour.

Their accuracy was remarkable: according to one source, the prediction was off by ca. 1 %. 10/

GDP has limited value as a measure of well-being. But it is a pretty good proxy measure for the ability to wage industrial war.

Obviously, it doesn't measure the willingness or desire to do so - but it does give a reasonable indication of the capability. 11/

The connection between economic and military power wasn't lost to experts after the war.

THAT is one very big reason post-war politicians became obsessed with GDP figures. But after the greatest industrial slaughter ever, it wasn't good form to say the silent part aloud. 12/

For example, numerous commentators have pointed out that the growth imperative isn't limited to capitalism: the Soviet Union and its vassals were at least equally obsessed with economic growth - I'd say even more - and even less concerned about environmental issues. 13/

This is not a coincidence.

The explicit model for the infamous Soviet five-year plans was the German war economy in World War I. Five-year plans were adopted by Stalin explicitly and specifically to quickly grow the Soviet economy so that it could prevail in a future war. 14/

Despite the horrific human and environmental costs of Soviet obsession with economic growth, despite initially allying with Hitler, the Soviets almost lost the war.

As Field Marshal Zhukov later admitted: the Soviets won only because of Lend-Lease aid from the U.S. and UK. 15/

Even though they erased the role of Lend-Lease aid from official Soviet history, Soviet leaders were excruciatingly aware of how far behind they were in economic power, the sinews of all power.

The entire Soviet military doctrine, for example, was geared for a short war. 16/

The need to win a future war before the Western economic power could be mobilized is THE reason the Soviet Union spent up to a quarter of its economic production on unproductive weapons. Literally poured its wealth into holes in Siberia.

The environment came a distant third. 17/

Societies that have felt threatened by powerful others have always pursued the means to defend themselves.

History teaches again and again that societies without sufficient resources are at real risk of being dominated, militarily or economically, by the more powerful. 18/

And when a society believes it's threatened by domination, most other considerations become secondary priorities at best.

Even for me, the environment comes second to Finland's freedom. We couldn't protect our environment anyway if we were dominated. 19/

And since I'm well aware of the importance of economic power for mutual defense, in cases where environmental protection is incompatible with our ability to maintain our defenses, I would have to recommend prioritizing the latter.

Otherwise, I'd be dishonest. 20/

These considerations are absent from English and French discussions of e.g. #degrowth. Naturally: defense against predatory states isn't even remotely a pressing need in western Great Powers.

Activists in those countries have the luxury of not having to think about war. 21/

But even in countries not threatened by predatory neighbors, activists should consider what this dynamic means for environmental protection.

Because the dynamics of domination and resistance to domination spill over to maintain a GLOBAL growth imperative. 22/

As long as peripheral countries that feel threatened by military or economic domination pursue economic growth, the countries in the interior feel the pressure to compete as well. Proponents of economic growth can and do point out competition elsewhere. 23/

I don't believe #degrowth or even serious limits to the pursuit of economic growth, even if growth kills the planet, can be plausible and sustainable policies as long as countries have to fear domination by powerful others.

Desire to live free from domination comes first. 24/

The costs and damages of policies prioritizing economic growth over environmental protection are diffuse and difficult to pinpoint. They're mostly paid by others.

The costs of not having sufficient resources to maintain one's economic or political independence aren't. 25/

And this brings us to the reason #environmentalists and everyone who cares about the future of human civilization should support #Ukraine.

What is at stake now is how much smaller countries can rely on mutual defense and solidarity - and how selfish they have to be. 26/

A small country cannot win the economic or military competition against a larger country if both use equivalent technologies and are governed equally well.

Much smaller countries cannot win the competition even with much better technology and governance. 27/

The only alternatives for smaller countries are

1) mutual defense that relies on international solidarity against economic and military predation, or
2) prioritizing independent capability to fend off predation and bowing to aggressors that cannot be fended off.

28/

If countries are driven to 2) because of a lack of international solidarity with countries at risk of domination, the results will be disastrous.

Economic competition will continue to trump every environmental value. Limited local considerations MAYBE excepted. 29/

And that's not all. In a world with insufficient international solidarity, smaller countries would become dominated by powerful others.

Those who seek domination and the puppet leaders they prefer to install rarely care about the environment or other "soft" values. 30/

So in a world of insufficient international solidarity and insufficient mutual defense alliances, there would be

1) much more focus on destructive competition, and
2) much more countries that don't give a flying fuck about the global environment.

That is at stake now. 31/

Solidarity, including mutual defense, is the sine qua non for a sustainable world.

Only through solidarity and mutual defense can we reach a world where societies don't have to prioritize competition for resources.

The road to a sustainable world goes through #Ukraine now.
32/

I therefore implore everyone concerned about the environment or future to do what they can to help #Ukraine defend itself.

Whatever the outcome of this war, a precedent will be set.

If the precedent is "mutual defense isn't", then environmentalism is dealt a serious blow. 33/

I also implore environmental and sustainability thinkers to consider issues that aren't immediately obvious to those living in Western Great Powers.

You have the luxury of hating NATO, for instance. We in Eastern Europe see things a bit differently. 34/

For the record, I believe that we need more progressive mutual defense organizations than NATO or the UN.

A club of progressive democracies that is committed to mutual defense but renounces aggression would be great. That should be a thing for environmentalists to pursue. 35/35

PS. Some sources discussing the claims I made above are the following:

On early states:
Mann, M. (2012). The Sources of Social Power, Volume 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760 (New edition). Cambridge University Press.

On GDP and military power:
Lacey, J. (2011). Keep from all Thoughtful Men: How U.S. Economists Won World War II. Naval Institute Press.

On Soviet doctrine of short war:
Donnelly, C. N. (1988). Red banner: The Soviet military system in peace and war. Janes’s Information Group

On the role of economic power in world history:
Kennedy, P. M. (1989). The rise and fall of the great powers: Economic change and military conflict from 1500-2000. Fontana Press.