Thank you, Ramesh. I appreciated this article for shedding light on the common assumption that countries like Norway have already "solved" sustainability simply through recycling, renewable energy, and electric vehicles. Your distinction between social well-being and true ecological sustainability is an important one.
As you know, I align with much of what you've written. My question is: How do we create the conditions for these ideas to take root?
Over the past two years, I've been trying to understand how to support more resilient communities and, ultimately, a more resilient society. I've listened to many people's stories, and while I sense that more people are open to systemic change, each person seems to envision that future differently.
Because of that, I find myself hesitating to prescribe absolute solutions. Instead, I'm trying to sit with these stories, listen deeply, and better understand my role in supporting a more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate future for all.
There is a paradigm shift happening as we speak; we see it in systems thinking, ecological economics, climate activism, a growing interest in socialism and cooperative economics, localism, etc. This broader movement is small compared to the power of neoliberalism and the global political powers of China, Russia, and the US, but it indicates a rising tide of systems change on the right side of history. So, in many ways, the conditions for change are already in the works. As the saying goes, change happens slowly, then all at once. Let us continue to ride that wave the best and in all the ways that we can.
Could Norway deliberately use the high level of trust, strong public institutions, cooperative traditions, and material security it already possesses to move beyond welfare capitalism toward deeper economic democracy, lower material consumption, and genuine ecological balance?
I think the Nordic countries are better suited than most to make this much-needed leap. But most likely it will happen when the global crises become more acute. Unfortunately, we humans often need challenges to move us beyond the status quo. Right now, Scandinavian countries are sleepwalking through a kind of materialistic stupor, too much comfort, too stuck in the culture of koselighet (coziness).
Could Scandinavia’s comfort, security and high social trust be foundations for change rather than signs of complacency? Living in Sweden, I find the description of the Nordic countries as sleepwalking in a culture of cosiness a little too broad. Sweden has taken on considerable humanitarian responsibility and faced difficult questions about refugee reception, integration, welfare and social cohesion, so the present hardly seems like some carefree materialistic stupor. Could the deeper obstacles be institutional inertia, vested interests and a natural concern about losing hard-won security? I would also be wary of looking to worsening crises as the likely catalyst for change, since they can just as easily lead to fear, division and authoritarian responses as to positive change.
Norway has also taken in thousands of refugees, which is positive, but overall, on a global scale, Scandinavia is a cozy place compared to much of the rest of the world. But that also creates cultural stagnation. I also agree that a crisis can lead to negative changes, but one fundamental problem in Scandinavia today is materialism and the fact that our standard of living is in part based on resource imports from outside, and that recognition is needed and will likely only come through an inner or outer crisis that is much needed.
I agree that Scandinavian living standards depend partly on resources and environmental costs displaced beyond our borders, and that this deserves much greater recognition. But I am less convinced that materialism or cultural cosiness sufficiently explains the problem. High resource consumption is a structural fact, whereas materialism is a judgement about people’s inner values, and the two are not necessarily the same.
Norway has certainly received many refugees, but Sweden’s humanitarian commitment has been on a markedly different scale. Sweden has taken on substantial responsibilities concerning refugee reception, integration, welfare and social cohesion. That record sits somewhat uneasily with describing the Nordic countries primarily in terms of comfort, cosiness and cultural stagnation.
There is also already considerable environmental awareness in the Nordic countries. Indeed, the recycling systems, renewable-energy policies and transition to electric vehicles mentioned in your article are themselves evidence of that. The deeper problem may be the gap between this awareness and the economic structures, vested interests, infrastructure and global supply chains that limit what people can actually change. Rather than expecting recognition to depend upon an inner or outer crisis, could the more constructive task be to use the security, trust and public capacity already present to turn existing awareness into deliberate structural change?
High resource use is a structural (capitalist) fact but also part of a cultural habit; thus, these are not the same but very much linked. A change in values is needed to motivate people to change the structure. That was my point. Your last paragraph is more to the point of my article, but: trust, security, and material consumption indicate a system and culture that are stagnant and need a paradigm shift to create change — often, crisis precipitates such changes.
Values and structures influence one another, no doubt. But what evidence shows that the main obstacle in Scandinavia is a lack of the values needed for change, rather than a failure to translate values many people already hold into ownership structures, infrastructure, political incentives and global markets? Trust and security may support change rather than indicate cultural stagnation.
Thank you, Ramesh. I appreciated this article for shedding light on the common assumption that countries like Norway have already "solved" sustainability simply through recycling, renewable energy, and electric vehicles. Your distinction between social well-being and true ecological sustainability is an important one.
As you know, I align with much of what you've written. My question is: How do we create the conditions for these ideas to take root?
Over the past two years, I've been trying to understand how to support more resilient communities and, ultimately, a more resilient society. I've listened to many people's stories, and while I sense that more people are open to systemic change, each person seems to envision that future differently.
Because of that, I find myself hesitating to prescribe absolute solutions. Instead, I'm trying to sit with these stories, listen deeply, and better understand my role in supporting a more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate future for all.
There is a paradigm shift happening as we speak; we see it in systems thinking, ecological economics, climate activism, a growing interest in socialism and cooperative economics, localism, etc. This broader movement is small compared to the power of neoliberalism and the global political powers of China, Russia, and the US, but it indicates a rising tide of systems change on the right side of history. So, in many ways, the conditions for change are already in the works. As the saying goes, change happens slowly, then all at once. Let us continue to ride that wave the best and in all the ways that we can.
Thank you Ramesh.
Could Norway deliberately use the high level of trust, strong public institutions, cooperative traditions, and material security it already possesses to move beyond welfare capitalism toward deeper economic democracy, lower material consumption, and genuine ecological balance?
I think the Nordic countries are better suited than most to make this much-needed leap. But most likely it will happen when the global crises become more acute. Unfortunately, we humans often need challenges to move us beyond the status quo. Right now, Scandinavian countries are sleepwalking through a kind of materialistic stupor, too much comfort, too stuck in the culture of koselighet (coziness).
Could Scandinavia’s comfort, security and high social trust be foundations for change rather than signs of complacency? Living in Sweden, I find the description of the Nordic countries as sleepwalking in a culture of cosiness a little too broad. Sweden has taken on considerable humanitarian responsibility and faced difficult questions about refugee reception, integration, welfare and social cohesion, so the present hardly seems like some carefree materialistic stupor. Could the deeper obstacles be institutional inertia, vested interests and a natural concern about losing hard-won security? I would also be wary of looking to worsening crises as the likely catalyst for change, since they can just as easily lead to fear, division and authoritarian responses as to positive change.
Norway has also taken in thousands of refugees, which is positive, but overall, on a global scale, Scandinavia is a cozy place compared to much of the rest of the world. But that also creates cultural stagnation. I also agree that a crisis can lead to negative changes, but one fundamental problem in Scandinavia today is materialism and the fact that our standard of living is in part based on resource imports from outside, and that recognition is needed and will likely only come through an inner or outer crisis that is much needed.
I agree that Scandinavian living standards depend partly on resources and environmental costs displaced beyond our borders, and that this deserves much greater recognition. But I am less convinced that materialism or cultural cosiness sufficiently explains the problem. High resource consumption is a structural fact, whereas materialism is a judgement about people’s inner values, and the two are not necessarily the same.
Norway has certainly received many refugees, but Sweden’s humanitarian commitment has been on a markedly different scale. Sweden has taken on substantial responsibilities concerning refugee reception, integration, welfare and social cohesion. That record sits somewhat uneasily with describing the Nordic countries primarily in terms of comfort, cosiness and cultural stagnation.
There is also already considerable environmental awareness in the Nordic countries. Indeed, the recycling systems, renewable-energy policies and transition to electric vehicles mentioned in your article are themselves evidence of that. The deeper problem may be the gap between this awareness and the economic structures, vested interests, infrastructure and global supply chains that limit what people can actually change. Rather than expecting recognition to depend upon an inner or outer crisis, could the more constructive task be to use the security, trust and public capacity already present to turn existing awareness into deliberate structural change?
High resource use is a structural (capitalist) fact but also part of a cultural habit; thus, these are not the same but very much linked. A change in values is needed to motivate people to change the structure. That was my point. Your last paragraph is more to the point of my article, but: trust, security, and material consumption indicate a system and culture that are stagnant and need a paradigm shift to create change — often, crisis precipitates such changes.
Values and structures influence one another, no doubt. But what evidence shows that the main obstacle in Scandinavia is a lack of the values needed for change, rather than a failure to translate values many people already hold into ownership structures, infrastructure, political incentives and global markets? Trust and security may support change rather than indicate cultural stagnation.