"We absolutely must break free from this absurd logic of infinite growth in a finite world."

The World of Religions – 4/10/2020 – by Virginie Larousse –

In an interview with Le Monde, the former Minister for Ecological Transition and the philosopher urge society to "constantly question the purpose of its choices." This "revolution of consciousness," they warn, is a "matter of survival.".

They share a background in media – television for Nicolas Hulot and his show Ushuaïa , and print journalism for Frédéric Lenoir, former editor-in-chief of Le Monde des Religions . Another commonality unites them: their love of nature and their commitment to the common good, which they champion in particular through the Nicolas Hulot Foundation for the former Minister for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition, and the SEVE Foundation (Knowing How to Be and Live Together) for the philosopher.

“We are at a sublime crossroads where our survival is at stake,” they assert in the book they have just published with Fayard, From One World to Another, the Time of Consciences *. A nourishing dialogue, where combativeness vies with incomprehension in the face of the global denial of the gravity of the crisis we are going through.

To "break free from the impasse of resignation coupled with the abdication of individual conscience in favor of collective unconsciousness ," the two men urge us to "dare to dream of utopia" and to rediscover the sense of the sacred in a society that is falling apart.

At a time when alarming signs threaten our civilization, you are calling for the construction of a "new world". How would you define it?

Frédéric Lenoir: I share with Nicolas Hulot and many others a number of values: the aspiration for beauty, the connection with nature, freedom – a freedom that is above all internal, which does not simply consist of following one's desires, but of accepting to set limits for oneself – sharing, solidarity.

We do not want to live in a world where inequalities continue to grow, in a world based on values ​​of competition, domination, and predation, where human societies are disintegrating, swept away by this consumerist liberalism.

Nicolas Hulot  : The "world after ," to use a fashionable phrase, is a society that constantly questions the purpose of its choices, that redefines ends before means, a society that continually scrutinizes its own decisions through the lens of conscience, that resynchronizes science and conscience, and that refuses to distort the meaning of the words "economy" or "progress." It is a world that shifts from competition to cooperation, from predation to protection.

It is clear that today, our societies are becoming increasingly fragmented – even if the initial intentions were laudable. At the dawn of the 21st ^century , we are suffering the consequences of our excessive success, our technology, and our science. It is more urgent than ever to take stock of our achievements, to distinguish those that truly contribute to human flourishing from those that alienate us, to sift through the possibilities – because not everything that is economically and technologically feasible is necessarily virtuous.

Isn't the plan you're proposing a utopia?

NH: The true utopia is imagining that an economy based on the exponential exploitation of limited resources can thrive without experiencing scarcity. The true utopia is believing that scarcity can coexist with democracy. The true utopia is believing that in this very foundation upon which life has formed over time and which is now crumbling, humanity will have a place of honor. The utopia is imagining that the current model and its woes could have a happy ending for humankind. Finally, the last utopia is believing that a world where 1% of the population captures 93% of the wealth can live in peace. Perhaps as long as this remains a secret! But in a world exposed to the light, because it is hyper-connected, everyone can become aware of these situations of injustice and indignity, which are incompatible with peace.

"The world after is a society that constantly re-examines its own decisions through the lens of conscience."

It is utopian to think that this unjust model can be perpetuated without harmful consequences, including for those who benefit from it. This is why solidarity is not an option: no one can live peacefully in a world marked by such inequalities.

FL: We have no choice. We are living through an unprecedented period in human history. Humanity has never been as connected as it is today, where everything has an impact from one end of the planet to the other, unlike in ancient times.

Furthermore, for the first time in human history, we are impacting the planet: since the end of the 1950s, when we entered a new geological era, the Anthropocene, the effect of human activities has become decisive on planetary balances and on the future of life on Earth, with in particular the dramatic reduction of biodiversity.

For better or for worse, we are all bound by a common destiny. If we want life, and humanity in particular, to continue to flourish sustainably on Earth, we absolutely must break free from this absurd logic of infinite growth in a finite world. What we are experiencing today is a systemic crisis, since everything is interconnected: economic, ecological, health crises, and so on. We must move beyond the logic that underlies this crisis, namely the constant pursuit of more and more, and shift from the reign of quantity to the reign of quality—quality of life, of being, of relationships with others, with the world.

The paradigm shift you advocate requires a complete overhaul of the system – from political life to the functioning of the European Union, including businesses and ourselves. Where do we begin? How do we take action?

NH  : This may seem discouraging because we've allowed crises to accumulate instead of anticipating them. I advocate starting by establishing a method: how do we organize this transformation? We need to reclaim this time for evaluation, for pausing, which is sorely lacking in a society as fast-paced as ours. A metamorphosis is planned over years, sometimes decades, well beyond the horizon of an election.

This is why we must set objectives, enshrine them in law to make them irreversible, and be able to anticipate the sectors that will be impacted by these decisions so as not to leave anyone behind – in a hyper-reactive society like ours, this would generate all sorts of gridlock. Our democracies are woefully inadequate when it comes to anticipating and managing change. We often know what needs to be done, but we don't know how to do it.

"No one will be able to live peacefully in a world marked by such inequalities."

FL  : It's clear we'll have to make some difficult choices, since we'll need to support everything that's viable in the long term and accept the need to divest from the most environmentally damaging sectors. This is what we call selective growth. We'll need to support struggling sectors.

In the current crisis of political representation, citizen participation is also essential. Today, citizens do not feel represented. It is therefore necessary to involve them more – as was done, in particular, with the Citizens' Convention for Climate, where the 150 randomly selected individuals dared to make particularly bold decisions.

It's also about each individual taking responsibility. Not everything can come from the government. Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world ." We must change our lifestyles. We know that overconsumption of meat is catastrophic for the planet, in addition to being bad for our health and a source of suffering for animals. We can all, in our own way, reduce our meat consumption.

What's driving us to disaster is the combination of selfishness, the fact that we always want more. How can we understand this inability to be satisfied with what we have?

FL  : From Greek philosophers to Buddha, the sages of humanity have pointed to this paradoxical nature of human beings, driven by an impulse to always possess more, yet also possessing this extraordinary capacity to realize that they must practice moderation to discover a deeper and more lasting happiness than the euphoria of "always more." Scientific explanations corroborate this intuition: our brain needs dopamine, an addictive substance that provides immediate pleasure. However, we realize that what underlies our deepest joys comes from being—knowledge, contemplation of nature, the quality of our relationships—and not from having.

NH  : Victor Hugo aptly foresaw this vice: "By wanting to possess, we ourselves become possessed." That said, let's not forget that many people who lack even the bare minimum would love to be at that stage. But many of us have succumbed to a kind of intoxication, society having created this tyranny of desire that leaves us perpetually dissatisfied. We should begin by realizing that we aspire to be free beings, while in reality we are conditioned, practically automated. We no longer know how to control our impulses. This simple awareness should be enough to make us question ourselves. If we truly want to be free, let's regain control over our impulses.

A major misunderstanding exists with the word "freedom," which in reality does not refer to the absence of rules, but rather to the rules we set for ourselves. This is one of the stages of civilization that humanity must go through—learning to set limits—which is undoubtedly the most difficult phase. This crisis of meaning is a fundamental issue that we can no longer avoid, and which can then be addressed through public policies, particularly incentive-based or deterrent taxation.

"We aspire to be free beings, when in reality we are conditioned, almost automated."

FL  : As early as the 17th ^century , Spinoza, the founder of modern political philosophy, theorized our modern democracies, explaining that the best system is one that separates politics and religion, with a rule of law that guarantees freedom of conscience and expression. But he also said that enjoying these political freedoms is futile if we remain slaves to our desires and impulses.

We must therefore develop the ability to discern what brings us profound joy that uplifts us, and not petty desires that diminish us. The essence of humanity, he reminds us, is desire. It is not a matter of suppressing it, but of guiding it through reason toward what helps us grow and is socially just. This is why, following his lead, I believe that ethics and politics must always be linked.

Many people share your analysis and strive to lead a simple life in their daily lives. Shouldn't they organize themselves into a united front to have a real impact on the public debate?

NH: Through my travels, I've become convinced that two opposing forces exist: one that works to seize the common good, while the other seeks to protect it—to put it somewhat simplistically. The benevolent force is the majority, but it lacks structure, unlike the unscrupulous and cynical one.

Your question is therefore essential: how can we ensure that this majority can express itself, lead the way, and become an irresistible force? Perhaps this virtuous force is organizing itself imperceptibly and will emerge unexpectedly, far removed from the traditional forms of partisan politics. We must never despair: as the proverb says, "You hear the tree fall but not the forest grow ." That's the only thing that prevents me from giving up.

Do you ever feel like giving up on everything given the meager results obtained?

NH  : Obviously, there is sometimes fatalism, resignation and even anger, especially since I am regularly booed under the pretext that I do not have a solution to everything, even though I have been fighting for thirty-five years.

Yes, there are times when you want to throw in the towel, when I think to myself, "What a waste of energy telling humanity to save itself!" But with regard to this invisible humanity I was talking about, when you have the freedom I have, you don't have the right to exclude yourself from the fight. For all those who are struggling, for our children, and for all the victims, we don't have the right to desert.

And beyond the blows and the unpleasantness one can feel when one feels unheard, there is still a kind of reward. This commitment has brought exceptional men and women into my life, whom I would not have met otherwise. That is priceless.

FL  : I couldn't be happy in an unhappy world, isolating myself from it and saying, "Oh well." I need to feel useful. I've received so much, and so I need to participate in fostering this necessary shift in consciousness. What sustains me is seeing so many people generously involved in community organizations and yearning for something more.

"What gives rise to our deepest joys comes from being – knowledge, contemplation of nature, the quality of the relationships we maintain – and not from having."

Could you be tempted by political life again?

NH  : Victor Hugo already denounced this policy where orders are preferred to conscience – one of the explanations for the distrust of a segment of the population towards the political class. What harms politics is the esprit de corps, the abdication of individual conscience in favor of a herd mentality. Faced with the gravity of the situation we are confronting, we should be able to agree on common objectives and combine our intelligences, rather than constantly pitting them against each other.

I still secretly hope that a new form of politics, a new kind of coalition, will emerge, drawing on the best of civil society, politics, economics, and the scientific community, to shape and build the future. I would be very happy to support it. Could I take the initiative? To be perfectly frank, I no longer feel I have the energy. We need fresh blood. But politics is like nature: it abhors a vacuum. And there is currently an abysmal void in politics, which can certainly be filled by the worst, but also by the best. It is often in tense moments that great women and men emerge. I eagerly await this.

"What harms politics is the esprit de corps, the abdication of one's individual conscience in favor of a herd mentality."

Can religions and spiritualities accompany this transition, or are they just as rigid as politics?

FL  : Both options exist. Religions can perpetuate stagnation by maintaining cultural models that need profound change, particularly regarding the status of women, or they can maintain prejudices of intolerance that hinder intercultural dialogue. But they can also offer a spiritual dimension, reminding human beings of the necessity of inner life, meditation, and love. If this message were lived and embodied, the world would be transformed!

Religions are ambivalent; they can encompass both the best and the worst, from sectarianism to universality, including domination and love of neighbor. Among the best, there is, for example, Pope Francis's encyclical on ecology, Laudato si' as well as his stances on social justice and welcoming the stranger. It is a valuable voice.

NH  : One of the great pioneers of ecology, the agronomist René Dubos, said that humankind is no longer connected to anything, which he described as the "tragic disarray of modern man ." This is part of the anguish of our time: we are indeed disconnected from everything, from our past, from our future, which we are jeopardizing. We must therefore reconnect.

"I still secretly hope that a new form of politics will emerge to shape and build the future."

Do we need religions for this? It's not certain, but they can participate. That's why, when I participated in the preparation of COP21, one of my first actions was to establish contact with the Vatican and with most of the major religions: everything related to creation should be a mobilizing force for them and for believers as a whole.

Nevertheless, this crisis of meaning concerns secularists and atheists just as much. Spirituality is not the exclusive domain of religions. In any case, anything that allows us to connect, to honor life, and to realize the incredible privilege we have of being alive, anything that awakens consciousness to this miraculous, even magical, dimension of life, must be encouraged. For contrary to popular belief, this dimension is not the norm in the universe, but the exception.

What is the sacred, in your opinion, and how can we rediscover its essence in a society that is no longer connected to a form of transcendence?

FL  : There are two definitions of the sacred. One, developed by the founder of sociology, Émile Durckheim, distinguishes the sacred from the profane: what is sacred is what religions have sacralized as places, spaces, and times to separate them from the profane world. The other definition of the sacred, more anthropological, is that of Rudolf Otto: the sacred is what human beings can experience when they find themselves in nature and feel overwhelmed by this spectacle that elevates them, moves them, stirs them, and sometimes terrifies them.

I believe we have all experienced this feeling at one time or another, this wonder at the harmony of nature or the cosmic order. Yet many people live in cities and have cut themselves off from such a spectacle. It is urgent to rediscover this profound and universal sense of the sacred, which makes us feel we belong to a Whole, a harmonious Whole that transcends us. By doing so, we can experience very powerful joys, feel grounded to the Earth and connected to the cosmos. Whereas when we are disconnected from nature, we float like a straw, remaining confined to the mind, to ideas.

"It is urgent to rediscover this profound and universal sense of the sacred that makes us feel we belong to a Whole."

Isn't it already too late to consider "something else"?

NH  : I admit that when I speak, I tend to bend the truth a little. At the risk of sounding pretentious, I see the world unfiltered, in all its difficulty in evolving. The time it took us to react makes resolving these crises all the more complex.

Having said that, to use a common expression, "it's too late to be pessimistic ." We can consider the worst-case scenario, but I still hope to avoid it. Because if everything is lost, as some have made it into a near-religion, it's no longer a motivating force; it's every man for himself.

Let's acknowledge that our world is very complex, and that it can hold some pleasant surprises. In other words, there are reasons to be concerned: we simply need to be clear-sighted. And I prefer clear-sightedness to denial. Nevertheless, I remain confident: if we manage, by some miracle, to demonstrate a collective intelligence that allows us to act in the same direction, we could propel humanity forward in a new qualitative leap.

FL  : I remain optimistic because solutions exist, and history has shown that human beings, when faced with major challenges, are capable of adapting very quickly. The two world wars, for example, gave rise to the construction of Europe; today, a war between France and Germany would be unimaginable. I think, unfortunately, that we will go from one catastrophe to another, which will, however, lead to a mobilization of consciences and rapid change. The whole question is whether it will be too late in light of the runaway climate change… Only time will tell.

Virginie Larousse

* From One World to Another: The Time of Awareness , by Nicolas Hulot and Frédéric Lenoir (interview by Julie Klotz), Ed. Fayard, 2020

Previous articles