“We absolutely must move away 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 invite society to "constantly question the purpose of its choices." This "revolution of consciousness," they warn, is a "question of survival."

They have in common that they have been media men – television for Nicolas Hulot and his show Ushuaïa , the written press for Frédéric Lenoir, former editorial director of Le Monde des religions . Another common point brings them together: their love of nature and their commitment to serving the common good, which they defend in particular within the Nicolas Hulot Foundation for the former Minister of 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 affirm in the four-handed work they have just published with Fayard, From One World to Another, the Time of Consciences *. A nourishing dialogue, where combativeness competes with incomprehension in the face of the global denial of the gravity of the crisis we are going through.

To "break out of the impasse of resignation coupled with the abdication of individual conscience in favor of collective unconsciousness ," the two men invite us to "dare to embrace utopia ." And to rediscover the meaning of the sacred in a society that is falling apart.

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

Frédéric Lenoir: I share a number of values with Nicolas Hulot and many others: the aspiration to beauty, the connection with nature, freedom – a freedom that is above all internal, which does not consist simply of following one's desires, but of agreeing to set limits –, 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, 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 constantly sifts its own decisions through the sieve 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 moves from competition to cooperation, from predation to protection.

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

Isn't the plan you are proposing a utopia?

NH: The true utopia is to imagine that an economy based on the exponential exploitation of limited resources can have an outlet without going through the scarcity box. The true utopia is to think that scarcity can be compatible with democracy. The true utopia is to believe that in this substrate on which life has formed over time and which is in the process of disintegrating, man will have a place of choice. The utopia is to imagine that the current model and its torments can have a happy outcome for humanity. Finally, the last utopia is to think that a world where 1% of the population captures 93% of the wealth can live in peace. Perhaps as long as it is not known! But in a world open to the light of day, because it is hyperconnected, everyone can become aware of these situations of injustice and indignity, which are not compatible with peace.

“The world after is a society that constantly puts its own decisions through the sieve of conscience.”

The utopian idea is that we can continue this unjust model without any harmful consequences, including for those who benefit from it. This is why solidarity is not an option: no one will be able to live peacefully in a world marked by such inequalities.

FL: We have no choice. We are living in 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 late 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, notably with the dramatic reduction in biodiversity.

For better or for worse, we are all connected to a common destiny. If we want life, and especially humanity, to continue to flourish on Earth in the long term, we absolutely must move away from this absurd logic of infinite growth in a finite world. What we are experiencing today is a systemic crisis, since everything is linked: economic, ecological, health, etc. We must move away from the logic that underlies this crisis, namely the constant search for more and more, and move 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 start? How do we take action?

NH  : This may seem discouraging because we have allowed crises to accumulate instead of anticipating them. I recommend starting by implementing a method: how do we organize the transformation? We must regain this time for evaluation, for pause, which is sorely lacking in a rushed society like ours. A metamorphosis is planned over years, sometimes decades, and therefore well beyond an electoral horizon.

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 blockages. Our democracies are cruelly lacking in anticipation and support for change. We often know what needs to be done, but we don't know how.

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

FL  : It is clear that we will have to face painful choices, since we will have to support everything that is viable in the long term and assume divestment from the sectors of activity that are most harmful to the environment. This is what we call selective growth. We will have to support sectors in difficulty.

In the context of the current crisis of political representation, citizen participation is also essential. Today, citizens do not feel represented. We must therefore involve them more – as was done, for example, with the Citizens' Climate Convention, where the 150 people drawn by lot dared to make particularly bold decisions.

It's also about everyone taking charge of themselves on an individual level. Not everything can come from the state. Gandhi said: "Be the change you want for the world ." We must change our lifestyles. We know that overconsumption of meat is catastrophic for the planet, in addition to being bad for health and a source of suffering for animals. We can all, at our own level, reduce our meat consumption.

What drives us into a wall is the combination of selfishness, the fact that we always want more. How can we understand this inability to be satisfied with what exists?

FL  : From the Greek philosophers to Buddha, the sages of humanity have pointed out this paradoxical character of the human being, driven by an impulse to always possess more, but who also has this extraordinary capacity to realize that he must moderate himself to discover a deeper and more lasting happiness than the euphoria of "always more." Scientific explanations corroborate this intuition: our brain needs dopamine, which is addictive, which brings it immediate pleasure. Yet we realize that what founds our deepest joys comes from being—knowledge, the contemplation of nature, the quality of the relationships we maintain—and not from having it.

NH  : Victor Hugo had anticipated vice well: "By dint of wanting to possess, it is we who are possessed." That said, let's not forget that many people who don't have the bare minimum would like to be at this stage. But many of us have given in to a form of intoxication, society having created this tyranny of desire that leaves us permanently dissatisfied. We should start by realizing that we aspire to be free beings, when in reality we are conditioned, almost automated. We no longer know how to limit our impulses. This simple awareness should be enough to make us question ourselves. If we truly want to be free, let's take back control of our impulses.

There is a great misunderstanding surrounding the word "freedom," which in reality does not refer to the absence of rules, but rather to the rule that we set for ourselves. This is one of the stages of civilization that humanity must go through—knowing how to set limits—which is undoubtedly the most difficult phase. This crisis of meaning is a fundamental question that we can no longer avoid, and which can then be addressed through public policies, particularly incentive or dissuasive taxation.

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

FL  : As early as the 17th ^century , Spinoza, the inventor of modern political philosophy, theorized about 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 says 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 provokes deep joys in us that elevate us, and not petty desires that diminish us. The essence of man is desire, he reminds us. It is not a question of suppressing it but of directing it through reason toward what makes us grow and is socially just. This is why I believe, following his lead, that we must always link ethics and politics.

Many people share your analysis and strive to lead a sober life in their daily lives. Shouldn't they join forces to form a united front to be able to weigh in on the public debate?

NH: Throughout my travels, I have become convinced that two humanities are in opposition: one works to monopolize the common good, while the other seeks to protect it—to put it somewhat caricatured. Benevolent humanity is in the majority, but it is not structured, unlike unscrupulous and cynical humanity.

Your question is therefore essential: how can we ensure that this majority can express itself, show the way and become an irresistible breath of fresh air? Perhaps this virtuous force is being organized imperceptibly and will emerge unexpectedly, far from the classic forms of partisan politics. We must never despair: as the saying goes, "You can hear the tree fall but not the forest grow." This is the only thing that prevents me from resigning myself.

Do you ever feel like throwing everything away when you see the poor results you've achieved?

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

Yes, there are times when you want to throw in the towel, when I say to myself, "How much energy is needed to tell humanity to save itself!" But in relation 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 fighting, for our children and for all the victims, you don't have the right to desert.

And beyond the blows, the inconveniences that one can feel when one has the feeling of not being heard, there is still a form of royalty. This commitment has put in my path exceptional men and women, whom I would not have met otherwise. That is priceless.

FL  : I couldn't be happy in an unhappy world, putting myself apart from the world and saying "too bad." I need to feel useful. I've received a lot, and so I need to help foster this necessary transformation of consciousness. What sustains me is seeing that many people are generously involved in community life and aspire to something else.

“What founds our deepest joys comes from being – knowledge, contemplation of nature, the quality of the relationships we maintain – and not from having it.”

Could you be tempted back into politics?

NH  : Victor Hugo already denounced this policy where orders are preferred to conscience – one of the explanations for the distrust of a part of the population towards the political class. What harms politics is esprit de corps, the fact of abdicating one's individual conscience in favor of a horde conscience. Faced with the gravity of the situation we are facing, we should be able to agree on common objectives and to add intelligences, rather than constantly confronting them.

I still secretly hope that a new form of politics, of gathering, where we would take the best of civil society, politics, the economy, and the scientific community, will emerge to shape and build the imagination of tomorrow. I would be very happy to support it. Can I take the initiative? To be very frank, I no longer feel the energy. We need new 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 or great men emerge. I look forward to that.

"What harms politics is esprit de corps, the fact of abdicating one's individual conscience in favor of a horde conscience."

Can religions and spiritualities support this transition, or are they just as sclerotic as politics?

FL  : Both options exist. Religions can perpetuate sclerosis by maintaining cultural models that must evolve profoundly, particularly regarding the status of women, or they can maintain prejudices of intolerance that do not facilitate dialogue between cultures. But they can also bring a spiritual dimension, reminding human beings of the necessity of the inner life, of meditation, of love. If this message were lived and embodied, the world would be transformed!

Religions are ambivalent; they can carry the best as well as the worst, from sectarianism to universality, including domination or love of one's neighbor. Among the best, there is, for example, Pope Francis's encyclical on ecology, Laudato si' as well as his stance on social justice and welcoming strangers. His is a precious voice.

NH  : One of the great pioneers of ecology, the agronomist René Dubos, said that man is no longer connected to anything, which he called the "tragic disarray of modern man ." This is part of the current anguish: we are effectively detached from everything, from our past, from our future, which we are compromising. We must therefore reconnect.

“I still secretly hope that a new form of politics will emerge to shape the imagination of tomorrow and build it.”

Do we need religions for this? It's not certain, but they can participate. That's why, when I participated in the preparations for 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 mobilizing for them and for believers as a whole.

Nevertheless, this crisis of meaning concerns secularists and atheists alike. Spirituality is not the preserve of religions. In any case, anything that allows us to connect, to honor life and realize the incredible privilege we have to be alive, to awaken consciences to this miraculous, even magical, dimension of life, must be encouraged. Because, contrary to popular belief, the latter is not the norm in the universe, but the exception.

What is the sacred, according to you, and how can we rediscover its flavor 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, Emile Durckheim, distinguishes the sacred from the profane: sacred is what religions have made sacred as places, spaces, and times to separate them from the profane world. The other, more anthropological definition of the sacred 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, upsets them, moves 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. However, many people live in cities and have cut themselves off from such a spectacle. It is urgent to rediscover this deep and universal sense of the sacred which makes us feel we belong to a Whole, a harmonious Whole that surpasses us. In doing so, we can experience very powerful joys, feel anchored to the Earth and connected to the cosmos. Whereas when we are detached from nature, we float like a blade of straw, we remain confined to the mind, to ideas.

“It is urgent to rediscover this deep and universal sense of the sacred which 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 cheat a little with reality. At the risk of sounding pretentious, I see the world without a filter, in its difficulty in evolving. The time it took us to react makes resolving these crises all the more complex.

Once that has been said, to use a banal phrase, "it is too late to be pessimistic ." We can envisage the worst, but still, I hope, avoid it. Because if everything is ruined, as some make a quasi-religion of it, it is no longer mobilizing; it is the reign of every man for himself.

Let's acknowledge that our world is very complex, and that it can hold some pleasant surprises for us. In other words, there are reasons to be worried: we just need to be clear-headed. And I prefer clear-headedness to denial. I nevertheless remain confident: if we manage, by some miracle, to demonstrate a collective intelligence that allows us to act in the same direction, we could still make a qualitative leap for humanity.

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 catastrophe to catastrophe, which will, however, lead consciences to mobilize and evolve quickly. The whole question is whether it will not be too late compared to the runaway global warming... Only the future will tell.

Virginie Larousse

* From one world to another, the time of consciences , by Nicolas Hulot and Frédéric Lenoir (comments collected by Julie Klotz), Ed. Fayard, 2020

Previous articles