For most of this century many people from different cultural backgrounds have often seemed challenged by my worldview and assertions that we need to question and evolve beyond the myth of progress. I have regularly been called pessimistic, a ‘doomsdayer’, and even cynical about the future and human’s ability to overcome 21st century challenges. While I may be cynical about things like colonisation, the construction of race, capitalism, and even nation-state patriotism, I don’t think of myself as a cynic. Nor would I, or those around me call me pessimistic, hopeless or even particularly negative about the future (yes, I have specifically checked in with family, friends and peer networks on multiple occasions over the years to sense check). In fact, I believe the opposite to be true for me - I relate to myself as being an optimist at heart.

So let’s assume we can trust my own introspection and my surrounding social sphere’s judgements. Why then am I regularly accused of being pessimistic? This is a question I have reflected on at length over the years and one  I want to explore in this article. I hope that by doing so I can also explain why I contribute to Dark Green Auckland.

I know that I hold beliefs about the world that are contrary to the cultural narratives that I was brought up with as a ‘western, industrial, first-world’ citizen, and the beliefs of most Aucklanders today.

In essence why I believe I am often perceived to be pessimistic is because people don’t want to hear what I have to say - they simply don’t want to engage in conversations about limits to human growth and control and that the life they know and are accustomed to might change. My worldview and framing of the world sits in what Daniel C. Hallin calls the sphere of deviance [1] - a perspective that falls outside the bounds of legitimate (and comfortable) public debate. While Hallin’s framework focuses on discourse with mainstream media and journalism, I think this framework has relevance in the age of social media and even in contemporary public discourse. You see, I know that I hold beliefs about the world that are contrary to the cultural narratives that I was brought up with as a ‘western, industrial, first-world’ citizen, and the beliefs of most Aucklanders today. It has taken me most of my adult life to be able to see the pervasiveness of dominant western industrial culture narratives and how they shape our public discourse about the world and dictate what perspectives we can and cannot talk about. And it appears that my perspectives sit outside the window of discourse for many Aucklanders.

The meanings of ‘progressivism’ have varied over time and from different perspectives. It is based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. Progressivism began its ascent as a dominant worldview during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society. It affirms that the ongoing integration of the world (through western science) would reveal hidden, rational universal truths that would free us from the dogma of religion [2]. Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe [3]. I propose that progressivism remains a dominant narrative and belief system today. 

In 2014 Kari McGregor outlined a framework known as the Four Shades of Green in an attempt to define the four ‘tribes’ of the sustainability and environmental movement. These four shades are Lite Green, Bright Green, Deep Green and Dark Green and they have formed around divergent worldviews, theories of change, and an accepted range of tactics and strategies by these ‘tribes’ to address sustainability and environmental issues [4].  This framework suggests that within the sustainability movement progressivism is still very popular. Lite and Bright Green worldviews fit quite cleanly into progressive narratives.

Lite Greens embrace ‘green consumerism’ - they believe in voting with their dollars, that their own ethical consumption adds a drop to the bucket of overall change, and that is noble in and of itself. Lite Green is a shade that is amplified by light-hearted symbolic events, such as Earth Hour, and consumer-based challenges, such as Plastic Free July [5].

Bright Greens dominates the environment movement today and Bright Green solutioneering dominates public and political discourse. Bright Green techno-optimists present the promise of a bright future based on human ingenuity and our ability to harness technology, policy and market forces to solve any environmental problem and meet our every economic need [6].

Deep Greens have earned themselves a reputation for being the radicals of the environment movement for their commitment to deep ecological sustainability and pulling our destructive system up at the roots. For Deep Greens, the environment is the bottom line, and resistance is protection [7]. Deep Greens believe that governments and corporations are the cause of our environmental challenges and direct action needs to be taken to protect the environment from human plunder and waste.

Dark Greens base their approach to environmental issues on limits to growth, building resilience and upskilling themselves in preparation for the limits-to-growth predicated shocks to our energy supply, the economy, and the environment. Issues such as peak oil, population growth, industrial agriculture, and a perpetual-growth economy, underpin Dark Green theory and practice [8]. Dark Greens believe that we must start to build structures, institutions and patterns of living in a world with less complexity, energy and resources than today’s.

Because Lite and Bright Green narratives align to our neo-liberal industrial cultural narratives about markets, growth, and progress and don’t really challenge our society’s beliefs about the world and our place in them they sit snugly within Hollin’s sphere of consensus - topics on which there is widespread agreement, or at least the perception thereof. Within the sphere of consensus, media  takes for granted shared values and shared assumptions [9]. Similarly, and not surprisingly “current funding favours Bright Green and Lite Green approaches, for obvious reasons: they don’t challenge the received wisdom of the economic growth imperative or anthropocentric delusion, and they don’t challenge existing power structures”. [10]

However, with increasing understanding and exposure to information about how elites use power to their own advantage, and often at the expense of their surrounding environment and community, coupled with unsustainable policies and practices and widespread environmental degradation, a Deep Green worldview has become something that can also now be debated in public - it has entered into Hollin’s sphere of legitimate debate. Half a century ago people who publicly challenged governments and corporations and tried to hold them to account for their environmental impacts were vilified. Compare media coverage and public reactions to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the anti-nuclear and Native Forest Action protests here in Aotearoa with recent Climate Strike4Action or Extinction Rebellion protests.  We can see a clear shift in public attitudes legitimising those that challenge government policies and corporate practices. This is worth noting - our society seems ready to acknowledge that something is not quite right, and therefore individuals and organisations who act to defend and protect nature, even by ‘disobedient’ and disruptive means are not necessarily deviant (anymore) and their beliefs and actions can now be debated in public using balanced and objective language. 

This worldview reminds us that we are part of nature and subject to its laws, and constraints. In essence it challenges most western assumptions about ‘the ascent of man’ and our place both on Earth and in the cosmos.

But a Dark Green worldview however is still considered to be in what Hollin describes as the sphere of deviance. Why? Because it fundamentally questions the concept of progress and suggests that humans, may not even make it back to the moon let alone to Mars. Instead this worldview reminds us that we are part of nature and subject to its laws, and constraints. In essence it challenges most western assumptions about ‘the ascent of man’ [11] and our place both on Earth and in the cosmos. And I believe that most, if not all Aucklanders who have been raised on progressivist and humanist beliefs about our rightful dominance of the world and our ability to transcend worldly limits through science, technology and human evolution don’t want their worldview challenged. This narrative is so pervasive that most of those subscribed to progressivist industrialised world views seem affronted at the suggestion that this belief is a cultural invention and doesn’t withstand much scrutiny, at least not when accounting for the ecological and energy dynamics at play over the last five hundred years [12].

If you don’t believe me here are a few ways of ‘testing’ the pervasiveness of humanism and progressivist biases in Auckland’s society today: 

• Try reminding people that humans are in fact animals and see how quickly they reply with ‘yes but...’ [13]
• Ask people how they think we might address projected food shortages in the coming decades and what the impacts of turning some of Auckland’s most fertile soil into housing might mean for future generations.
• Inquire as to how long COVID-19 and the current recession might delay humanity from putting people on Mars.
• Gauge how long people think it will take humans to ‘solve’ climate change. 
• Ask people how Auckland is going to address water and energy shortages in the coming decades or how we are going to accommodate tens and even hundreds of thousands of new people moving to Auckland without diminishing our quality of life.
  

The dominant underlying assumption of our society seems to be that humans can (and must) ‘engineer’ solutions to overcome our current predicaments.

In my experience most people respond to most 21st century challenges with ‘progressive’ responses - something akin to “we’ll innovate our way out of it. Science, technology and the economic market will save us.” Increasingly, Deep Green and Millennials’ perspectives about the power of human mobilisation to achieve more equity and justice are also now a stable part of contemporary perspectives on how to address contemporary environmental, sustainability and human challenges. Either way the dominant underlying assumption of our society seems to be that humans can (and must) ‘engineer’ solutions to overcome our current predicaments. No one seems interested in questioning the ‘more’ paradigm. And no one is talking in public about living with less, simplifying our societies and adapting to a post-peak industrial and material world. 

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

Jiddu Krishnamurti

By asking myself the simple question “What future scenarios seem most likely for Auckland based on the available evidence?” I reach very different conclusions and likely outcomes than those offered by progressivism. 

Seeking to understand the realities of living in the 21st century requires me to stop, look, and listen to what my eyes, ears, head and heart are sensing and accept with an open heart some of the deep truths of our time. From the laws of physics to systems science, from debt based economics to the law of diminishing marginal returns, from climate science to ecological overshoot, from ecology to the history of the rise and fall of civilisations, the information I am processing tells a very compelling story of a global system in crisis that needs to adapt and change. And the only worldview that makes sense to me, both as an explanation of our current reality, and as a compass for meaningful action in the world today is a Dark Green one.

“It is a wholesome and necessary thing for us to turn again to the Earth and in the contemplation of her beauties to know of wonder and humility,” 

Rachel Carson

With eyes wide open and in humility and reverence, I can start to clarify the strategies and tactics that are most suited to me and my whānau in response to my understanding of the world and humans’ place within it - and a Dark Green perspective provides wonder, humility and what Jem Bendell calls radical hope -  “a form of hope that’s consciously chosen after denial. It is a form of hope that is empowered surrender to a situation. It accepts difficult realities about what is happening as well as one’s capabilities to influence things, but still connects with deeper values and requires action to make it real.” [14]

A positive, inspiring and life enhancing alternative to the myth of progress is to accept the limits of human control, dominance and continual improvement and to reconnect and work with nature, and establish deep roots with my place, my home, and my bioregion.

Therefore, for me a positive, inspiring and life enhancing alternative to the myth of progress is to accept the limits of human control, dominance and continual improvement and to reconnect and work with nature, and establish deep roots with my place, my home, and my bioregion. 

“If we are honest with ourselves and look into our heart’s deep interior, if we are honest from there then this isn’t about saving humanity this is about our courage to love as we have never loved before.” 

Skeena Rathor

Deep Ecology and permaculture [15] offer me much more comfort and reassurance about the world and my place in it than pervasive, defensive and deeply entrenched progressive and industrialised assumptions about human ingenuity and dominance over the natural world - that humans will and must always overcome natural forces that ‘stand in our way’.  

With honesty, humility and compassion, I seek to understand how limits will impact the future of Auckland in the coming years and decades and explore my role in the revitalisation of place-based culture and widening Aucklanders’ sense of community in Tāmaki Makaurau as the crises of the 21st century unfold.

From this ‘dark’ (green) place I seek to uncover the rich, beautiful and unique genius loci, or spirit of place of Tāmaki Makaurau - to embrace it, celebrate it, and help to reinvigorate a bioregional culture that has been in decline since colonisation. From this ‘darkness’ I aspire to root myself deeply in this life place I call home. With honesty, humility and compassion, I seek to understand how limits will impact the future of Auckland in the coming years and decades and explore my role in the revitalisation of place-based culture and widening Aucklanders’ sense of community in Tāmaki Makaurau as the crises of the 21st century unfold.  And this understanding and reverence for my home place, as well as my recognition of biophysical limits and rhythmic cycles make me a dark green Aucklander. 

I believe the conversations Aucklanders have today about our life place [16] have the potential to influence and even start to shape our shared future and I want to be part of those conversations. So if Dark Green conversations are still in the sphere of deviance, and not being discussed in mainstream media, we need a dedicated platform where people are able to explore, express and debate appropriate and practical responses to 21st century predicaments. 

“It is not up to you to determine the outcome. It is up to you to prepare for the future and to live fully in the moment - eyes wide open, paying attention, being responsible and exerting yourself appropriately.”          

Marshall Vian Summers