Digital Education and Degrowth
Overview
This OER first looks at the effects of capitalism and growth on the environment, and then introduces the concept of degrowth. Next, it will look at how education and digital education in particular can adapt itself to the concepts of degrowth in order to be sustainable and not harm the environment.
Introduction
Welcome!
This OER aims to look at the Degrowth movement and Digital Education and how it can transform itself to be more sustainable and embrace the future. It will do so in four main parts
- Look at the state of the world and how capitalism has created an environmental crisis.
- Introduce Degrowth as an alternative to capitalism.
- Analyse how green Digital Education currently is and the issues it is facing.
- Look into ways Digital Education can learn from Degrowth and embrace its concepts to become more sustainable.
You will be encouraged to share your thoughts and impressions of some of the activities or videos via different Padlet links. In addition to that, you will be prompted to complete some reflective tasks by yourself, which you can choose to share or keep to yourself.
You should take around three hours to complete all the sections.
You are encouraged to share your thoughts and opinions via Padlet for some sections. The Padlets are designed to be anonymous if you are worried about writing your thoughts using your name.
I hope you enjoy learning about Degrowth and how digital education can benefit from it as much as I've enjoyed writing this OER.
The Issue with Capitalism and Endless Growth
This section will look at how capitalism and endless growth are the root cause of climate change.
Capitalism is an economic system in which private entities buy and sell goods and set the prices of said commodities. In this system, private entities and individuals are encouraged to purchase/sell material goods to turn a profit. Until recently, capitalism was often seen and described as the only viable economic system as it fosters competition and creativity and ultimately leads to creating a more equal society than other systems such as socialist economies. These claims have been challenged more often than not and demonstrate that capitalism has created a wealth of issues on a global scale.
In the past century, capitalism has allowed the Global North to reach the status of 'developed' nations. They have collected unprecedented amounts of wealth, often at the expense of the Global South and poorer countries.
The main issue with capitalism that we will focus on today is that it is an unsustainable concept. The idea of endless growth on a planet with finite resources doesn't make sense. We consume far too much for our planet to keep up as things currently are. In 2021, the world used all the resources the planet can provide within a given year by the 29th of July (Earth Overshoot day). The same source shows how many planets would be required if the world lived like specific countries.
The primary indicator of growth used to measure how well a country is doing is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP is the measure of all finished products made and sold within a nation within a time period. In other words, wealth is calculated by the products made and sold in a country. GDP ignores a lot in its calculations, such as unpaid work or care work. A mother looking after her child, although a full-time activity, wouldn't be counted in the figures. There are other examples of what GDP doesn't take into account, but one thing that isn't counted in the GDP figures is the environment. GDP looks into the final products made and sold; the environmental costs aren't considered. This means that the charge on nature for making a product is ignored regardless of its impact on the environment. The first half of this Podcast from the Progress Network discusses the issues with GDP in more detail, whereas the second half focuses on alternatives to GDP with a section on Donut economics, which we will look into later on in this OER.
In addition to not providing benefits to the environment, capitalism has also shown that growth beyond a certain point does not equate to higher levels of happiness or of their mental wellbeing (Easterlin et al., 2010). Capitalism has done quite the opposite as it creates more inequality between people. This 2018 report by Oxfam estimated that the wealth of the 26 wealthiest people on the planet was equal to that of the poorest half of the world's population.
Watch the video below to find out more about the issues with capitalism.
Source: Our Changing Climate Youtube Channel.
In conclusion, if capitalism and endless growth aren't the answer to a prosperous society, then what is? This is what we are going to look into in the following section.
Activity
To go deeper into the issue with capitalism and how it is not unsustainable one, please read the paper below.
https://jayveetee.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/van-tol-2019-endless-growth-on-a-finite-planet-agta-conference-2019.pdf
Once you have read it, answer the following question:
- Do you believe a whole new economic system needs to be put into place, or do you believe capitalim can adapt itself to be more sustainable?
You can keep the answer to yourself or share it on this Padlet page.
References
Earth Overshoot Day (2022). Earth Overshoot Day 2019. [online] Earth Overshoot Day. Available at: https://www.overshootday.org/ [Accessed 21 Mar. 2022].
Easterlin, R.A., McVey, L.A., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O. and Zweig, J.S. (2010). The happiness-income Paradox Revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, [online] 107(52), pp.22463–22468. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1015962107
Lawson, M., Chan, M.-K., Rhodes, F., Butt, A.P., Marriott, A., Ehmke, E., Jacobs, D., Seghers, J., Atienza, J. and Gowland, R. (2019). Public Good or Private wealth? [online] Available at: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620599/bp-public-good-or-private-wealth-210119-en.pdf [Accessed 21 Mar. 2022].
Vallier, K. (2021). ‘Neoliberalism’ the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online] plato.stanford.edu. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=neoliberalism [Accessed 24 Apr. 2022].
van Tol, J. (2019). Endless Growth on a Finite Planet: An Ecological Economic Approach to Sustainability. [online] AGTA Conference. Available at: https://jayveetee.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/van-tol-2019-endless-growth-on-a-finite-planet-agta-conference-2019.pdf [Accessed 21 Mar. 2022].
Pre-Task: Degrowth
What is Degrowth?
Now that we looked at capitalism and how it has contributed to global warming and the unfolding climate crisis, we will look at degrowth and explore how it could be a viable alternative to the current system in place.
Before you find out more about the degrowth movement, I'd like you to share your thoughts and write down what the term degrowth means to you. You can do this by clicking the link to this Padlet page.
Degrowth as an Alternative
What alternatives are there to Capitalism then?
The answer could lie in the Degrowth movement. Degrowth is a relatively new concept, often vilified in the public media and the political class, who associate Degrowth with recession. Degrowth is something completely different. It's not about making economies go into recession and go back into the stone ages, as some have claimed.
Degrowth could be resumed in the following statement made at a conference in Paris in 2008.
The objectives of degrowth are to meet basic human needs and ensure a high quality of life while reducing the ecological impact of the global economy to a sustainable level, equitably distributed between nations…Once right-sizing has been achieved through the process of degrowth, the aim should be to maintain a steady-state economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating level of consumption. (Research and Degrowth, 2010).
To get a better idea of what Degrowth is, watch this video where Dr Gerber explains key concepts of what Degrowth is.
Source: John Akerman Ozgüc from AquinoxMedia - http://www.aquinoxmedia.com/ & Dr Julien-François Gerber.
Alexander H Jones (Jones, 2020) breaks degrowth into four pillars, simplicity, care, conviviality and the destruction of accumulation.
The four pillars of degrowth Jones writes about are:
Simplicity
Simplicity is about doing more with less (Jones, 2020). It's about dematerialism and being able to change our mindsets to not assume that material wealth will solve current issues.
Care
While capitalism puts growth and material comodities before people and nature, care is about stopping this and putting people at the heart of how we live as a society. It's about redfining what a good life is and placing experience and people before material gains.
Conviviality
Conviviality is about breaking our dependence on material things and technology. It's about learning to go without tools that are made to look indispensable and make our lives easier, when in reality they trap us and make us have to work more to be able to purchase.
Destruction of Accumulation
This Jones says is of utmost importance. It is ritualising deaccumulation. Just as we are encouraged to always purchase more and more in our capitalist society, the destruction of accumulation would be to have the complete opposite mindset about accumulating goods. It'd encourage us to rethink why we'd need to get something. In other words putting our needs before our wants.
What could Degrowth look like?
As more and more people realise that capitalism and its addiction to growth are the problems in our current society, additional research has been conducted for alternative solutions.
In 2012, Kate Raworth, an economist, came up with a new economic model she called 'Donuts Economics" in a report for Oxfam. In her theory, she discusses how humanity should live within the "donut" and anything on the outside of the donut represents humanity overexploiting resources, while anything within the inner circle represents social shortfalls that need addressing.
This system looks aims for humanity to live comfortably and in a way that doesn't put extra pressure on the planet.
Source: https://doughnuteconomics.org/about-doughnut-economics
In 2020, this was how things looked when represented by the donut.
Source: https://doughnuteconomics.org/tools-and-stories/11
For further information about donut economics, please watch the TED Talk below, where Kate Raworth describes its functionings in further detail.
Source: TED via Youtube.
Activity
In your home, count up all the digital technology you own. Consider whether or not you need every item. Think about which ones you couldn't go without and those you absolutely need.
Consider a way to reduce the digital technology you have around the house without losing in quality of life.
If you feel comfortable, share your results on this Padlet page.
References
Jones, A.H. (2020). What Is an Educational Good? Theorising Education as Degrowth. Journal of Philosophy of Education, [online] 55(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12494
Research & Degrowth (2010). Degrowth Declaration of the Paris 2008 Conference. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), pp.523–524.
Digital Education Today
Education and Capitalism
Now that we have looked at the root cause of the environmental crisis and offered an alternative with the Degrowth movement, let's look at the role the world of education plays. We will particularly look into Digital Education and the claims that it is a greener, more sustainable approach to teaching than face to face teaching.
Is education part of the capitalist system, or does it stand outside the current system? According to Graupe, education is not only part of the capitalist system, but it also takes an active part in moulding the mind of the people going through it.
The western educational system is shaped by and reproduces assumptions that constrain ideas for sustainable futures (Graupe in Kaufmann, Sanders & Wortmann 2019).
Other researchers confirm this assumption.
Educational institutions such as schools and universities are seen as stabilisers of the system in place; they are largely resistant to reflection, because they are strongly locked-in by power structures and path dependencies (cf. Göpel 2016; Narberhaus 2016).
The private sector in the digital education sector is taking an ever-growing part in the way people learn nowadays. The education system and digital education, in particular, are becoming an increasing part of this shift towards capitalism. Companies offer MOOCs (Coursera, Futurelearn) and other services via apps (Duolingo, Memrize).
Digital Education and Sustainability
If Private entities largely dominate digital education, how does it fare for sustainability and protecting the environment?
In 2008 traditional education accounted for 3% of the UK's commercial waste (Roy, Potter & Yarrow. 2008). The bulk of the pollution came from transportation and accommodation. Digital Education is a more sustainable solution than more traditional forms of learning. In a 2008 study, Roy, Potter & Yarrow claimed that digital education only produces 15% of the emissions traditional learning does (Roy, Potter & Yarrow. 2008).
When we take a closer look at how digital education reduces emissions of greenhouse gasses, we notice that proponents of digital education replacing traditional education compare how much cleaner it is in teaching places. They claim that thanks to digitalisation and smart appliances, schools and universities are greener than in the past. The issue is that they usually only look at figures from places of learning. They look over the fact that with digital education, the source of pollution often comes from other places.
The most significant sources of pollution with digital learning are
- The infrastructure of the internet
- The hardware
The Infrastructure of the Internet
Let's first focus on the infrastructure. The infrastructure primarily consists of servers hosted in data centres. They are the backbone of the internet and where all the information shared and used is stored. They are incredibly energy-hungry. A large data centre can require up to 100 megawatts of energy. That amounts to the energy needed to power 80,000 homes in the USA (Energy and Innovation, 2020).
The issue with data centres is how they are powered. International corporations such as Apple and Google have worked hard to ensure their data centres run on clean energy. This report by Greenpeace shows that a handful of companies are working hard to reduce their carbon footprint. Though the report dates back to 2017, it shows that most companies still power their data centres using energies that contribute to global warming.
Although things are changing, it's a process that takes time. In addition to that, it's often tricky knowing what type of cloud service the digital education sector is using. There are so many different companies, universities and schools that it's challenging to keep track. So when a university, school, or education company claims they are being green because most of the courses are now conducted online instead of face to face, it is vital to know how the servers they use are powered.
Watch the video below to learn more about data centres and the pollution they create.
However, the claims made that online education is greener than traditional forms of education are valid. Conducting lessons online pollutes less than conventional forms of education. With the current trends, where more digitalisation is taking place, and more is conducted online, the internet's infrastructure is more in demand. If the current growth patterns remain the same worldwide, the ICT sector could reach 14% of the world's energy consumption by 2040 (Belkhir and Elmeligi, 2018).
As digital education looks for ways of growing and using more technology and more power, the overall energy consumption increases. This puts extra stress on nature as more infrastructure needs to be created and run.
The Hardware
Now let's look at the hardware and the costs electronic products have on the environment. Moving education away from the classroom and onto the internet doesn't only put additional stress on the infrastructure but also requires users, teaching institutions and, on some occasions, private education companies to require more equipment to teach/learn.
Digital education as it stands today often requires students to bring their own devices, which Selwyn describes as 'bring your own' technology to study (Selwyn, 2021). Considering that 80% of a device's carbon footprint is created during the device's production (Cook & Jardim, 2017), asking each student to have their device in addition to replacing them every 2-4 years has a substantial impact on the environment. In addition to that, planned obsolescence often means that devices are not made to last more than four years (Selwyn, 2021).
Watch this video about the costs of Apple products. The video focuses on Apple products, but the same applies to all companies that manufacture electronic products.
Digital Education and Capitalism
Besides encouraging consumption by requiring learners and educators to have their own devices that need to be updated regularly, digital education fails to be green on another critical point: its relationship to capitalism and growth. In this final point in this section, we'll cover how digital education fully embraces capitalism in pursuit of eternal growth.
Whether from the public sector or a private entity, digital education today searches for growth to maximise profit and stay afloat. Digital education operates through competition instead of collaboration, putting profit ahead of learning. The private sector focuses on profit and growth, and the public sector is increasingly being run similarly to how companies are (Pucciarelli & Kaplan, 2016). A perfect example of that would be to look at the university ladders. Universities are constantly competing to get to the top and claim the number one spot.
This state of competition means companies or universities are constantly looking to outdo each other, which often results in more products, more apps, more things to have, possess and use, whether or not they are helpful or benefit the teachers or the students. An example of this can be found in a paper written by Melo et al. They wanted to develop a VR headset to assist students with Focused Associational Thinking (FAT). They spent months developing the code, the headset, and the learning experience's content. They ultimately didn't create the VR headset in time and fell back on doing the task using handouts and pencils. This helped them realise that:
…virtual reality does not present a new way of looking at the world. Instead, it enforces the opposite, teleologically binding our VR environment to a profoundly conventional way of experiencing the world (Melo et al., 2019).
By creating constant states of competition, digital education follows the same pattern of growth that led capitalism to create the environmental disaster we're facing today. Not only is digital education polluting through its infrastructure, but it's also contributing to global warming by having people purchase more things they don't necessarily need.
Although digital education is a greener solution than a more traditional approach to education, it is not sustainable or friendly for the environment. It is currently a tool for creating a more sustainable society (Becker & Otto in Filho, 2019). For education to become sustainable, it needs to go beyond capitalism, change its approach, and understand that 'business as usual is not sustainable in the long term.
Activity
If you are a teacher, look at how your teaching practice has changed over the years and consider how much technology you must use in the classroom. Consider whether it has had a positive impact on your teaching and whether or not all the digitalisation could have been avoided.
As a learner, consider whether all the lessons you now have online have positively impacted your learning and whether moving towards doing even more online will benefit your learning.
References
Belkhir, L. and Elmeligi, A. (2018). Assessing ICT Global Emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & Recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 177, pp.448–463. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261733233X [Accessed 5 Mar. 2022].
Cook, G. and Jardim, E. (2017). Guide to Greener Electronics 2017. [online] Greenpeace USA. Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/greener-electronics-2017/#1507729520628-e628e904-76bc [Accessed 22 Mar. 2022].
Cook, G., Lee, J., Tsai, T., Kong, A., Deans, J., Johnson, B. and Jardin, E. (2017). Clicking Clean: Who Is Winning the Race to Build a Clean Internet. [online] Greenpeace.org. 702 H Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20001 United States: Greenpeace Inc. Available at: https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/default/files/publications/20170110_greenpeace_clicking_clean.pdf [Accessed 16 Mar. 2022].
Filho, W.L. (2019). Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education Volume 3 S-Z. Cham Springer.
Göpel M (2016) The great mind-shift. How a new economic paradigm and sustainability transformation go hand in hand. Springer, Wiesbaden
Kaufmann, N., Sanders, C. and Wortmann, J. (2019). Building new foundations: the future of education from a degrowth perspective. Sustainability Science, [online] 14(4), pp.931–941. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00699-4
Melo, M., Bentley, E., McAllister, K.S. and Cortez, J. (2019). Pedagogy of Productive Failure: Navigating the Challenges of Integrating VR into the Classroom. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, [online] 12(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v12i1.7318
Narberhaus M (2016) Gesellschaftlicher Wandel als Lernprozess. Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwick-lungspädagogik 39(1):23–26
Pucciarelli, F. and Kaplan, A. (2016). Competition and Strategy in Higher education: Managing Complexity and Uncertainty. Business Horizons, [online] 59(3), pp.311–320. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0007681316000045 [Accessed 22 Mar. 2022].
Digital Education Tomorrow
Now we have looked at how digital education has failed to adapt itself and become sustainable; we're going to take a look at how it can go from being just a greener alternative to traditional education and indeed become sustainable by embracing degrowth.
We have seen how education and digital education are currently in a capitalist mindset and remain addicted to growth to stay relevant.
If digital education wants to survive and thrive, it must not only adapt its content to integrate climate issues such as biodiversity, sustainable lifestyles, or climate change; it must first and foremost focus on transforming the pedagogical approaches and learning environment (Becker & Otto in Filho, 2019). It is also essential for digital education to rethink what needs to be conducted digitally. The use of technology should not be something Selwyn describes as an always-on mode. Digital education needs to focus on online activities with clear educational values (Selwyn, 2021).
Simplicity in Digital Education
One pillar of degrowth is simplicity; in other words, doing more with less. To become sustainable instead of a greener alternative to the current system, digital education needs to reduce its dependence on technology. It looks and sounds counterintuitive. After all, shouldn't digital technology be fully online? What is meant here is that institutions and companies should focus their use of technology on what is essential in the classroom. Technology should be implemented when there's a need for it. Let's take the example of a middle school classroom. How much technology is necessary for this context? Do all students need to have their own device to study. Do they need to use them during each lesson?
Institutions need to consider the cost of running the infrastructure and the costs of purchasing the hardware. Is it worth it? Can activities be completed in the classrooms without the students requiring a specific device? It could be worth taking into account what Heidegger said back in 1977, in that,
the essence of technology is by no means anything technological" (Heidegger, 1977).
Care in Digital Education
Digital Education currently operates through competition instead of collaboration, putting profit ahead of learning. As we mentioned in the previous section, the private sector focuses on profit and growth, and the public sector is increasingly being run similarly to how companies are (Pucciarelli & Kaplan, 2016).
To move away from the cycle of growth Digital Education is locked in, it needs to refocus its effort on togetherness and collaboration instead of endless competition (Hammershøj, 2009). Working together and putting learners ahead of profit and performance is vital in transforming the field needs.
Furthermore, to achieve care and put the focus of digital education back in the hands of the people, it's essential to understand how current methods of individualisation through the use of data is counterproductive and takes power away from students and teachers alike. The powers rest in the hands of proprietary algorithms that quantify everything based on criteria only the companies or institutions who create them are in charge of. Jones describes financial capitalism and its relationship to data to control education as the coloniser-teacher in the classroom paradigm (Jones, 2021).
Putting an end to the mass harvest of data to 'personalise' education is thus essential to creating a learning environment that focuses on the interactions between learners and thus reduce our dependence on technology in the classroom. More care could be given to the development of group activities where technology can be used sparingly, and where the curriculum focuses on relationships between people.
Conviviality in Digital Education
Being part of this capitalist society where we are constantly looking for growth and the next big thing, digital education sometimes fails to realise what it already has.
Conviviality is about breaking the cycle of getting the next big thing we are told is going to make our lives far simpler and make the field of education easier to navigate. The example given in the previous section about Melo et al. trying to develop a VR platform to help learners learn better is the perfect example that the next big thing isn't always what it hopes to be, nor is it necessary.
There is already so much we have in terms of the technology used for digital education, that constantly looking to create something new that people will be required to buy and use is not only bad for the environment; but also counterpoductive in terms of learning. Technology moves faster than people and more often than not, teachers and learners do not need the next big thing in order to learn. The only benefactors are those who create, market and sell said technologies as they require growth to stay around.
To take control back, Jones goes as far as putting the power in the hands of the educators and puts forward the idea that educators who wish to resist financial capitalism's power and resist technology dehumanising students into data points would thus create a sense of togetherness, conviviality and interdependence that would subvert capitalism's hold on education (Jones, 2021).
The Destruction of Accumulation in Digital Technology
The final aspect mentioned by Jones is the destruction of accumulation. Selwyn touches on that when he describes the need for schools and universities to rethink how they use technology and how they should re-establish technology use in education as a shared and communal activity instead of everyone using their tools (Selwyn, 2021). This would make sense to reduce the number of devices being used and purchased and create a sense of community and togetherness that is not as easy to develop when everyone has their own device.
Jones goes further by saying limits should be put in places of learning on the use of resources, grades or marks and standardised scores. Some institutions are already beginning to do this. The ritualisation of results, growth and exam-based education is what needs to stop if the destruction of accumulation is to succeed in places of learning.
It is both about creating a new way of thinking in terms of the tools we use to learn and rethinking how to monitor and support learning so that the constant state of competition places of learning are locked in stops.
Final Words
For Digital Education to be sustainable, more than using sustainable energy to power factories and server rooms is required. Change needs to come from the makers of said technology and the people who need to embrace a different approach to using technology to learn. Doing more with less is something that none of us are familiar with as we've spent our lives being told more is always better.
It seems daunting as it's not only a change in how we use technology but also a change in how we think and approach how we teach and learn. We are all used to education being the way it is. We have all grown up with exams, with competition amongst other students. We have also looked at the universities we'd like to attend from a list of rankings explaining why such a university is the best. We're told to learn more using an ever-increasing amount of technology, varying from hardware to different apps, platforms and programmes.
Applying degrowth to digital education would require radical changes to the way we approach learning, the way we conduct learning and more importantly, the way we are used and datafied by algorithms that are taking more and more space in our learning process.
Activity
Take a look at your classroom and how you teach. How can you embrace the four pillars of learning in your classroom to place more emphasis on the learners instead of results?
References
Filho, W.L. (2019). Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education Volume 3 S-Z. Cham Springer.
Hammershøj, L.G. (2009). Creativity as a Question of Bildung. Journal of Philosophy of Education, [online] 43(4), pp.545–558. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00703.x [Accessed 22 Mar. 2022].
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. (William Lovitt, Trans.). In The question concerning technology and other essays(3-35). New York: Harper & Row.
Jones, A.H. (2020). What Is an Educational Good? Theorising Education as Degrowth. Journal of Philosophy of Education, [online] 55(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12494 [Accessed 22 Mar. 2022].
Pucciarelli, F. and Kaplan, A. (2016). Competition and Strategy in Higher education: Managing Complexity and Uncertainty. Business Horizons, [online] 59(3), pp.311–320. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0007681316000045 [Accessed 22 Mar. 2022].
Selwyn, N. (2021). Ed-Tech within Limits: Anticipating Educational Technology in Times of Environmental Crisis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(5), pp.496–510.
Conclusions
In this OER, we explored a wide array of topics. We began looking at the issue with capitalism, without which the other problems wouldn't be necessary. We then explored a sustainable alternative to capitalism in degrowth.
In the second half, we looked into where education stood in terms of capitalism and sustainability before finally offering alternatives and solutions to education and, more specifically, digital education could use to become truly sustainable as well as refocusing on people.
I believe in the idea of degrowth, and I think we as a society will go through degrowth to achieve sustainability and live in better harmony with nature and non-human living entities. Whether degrowth is achieved because we want it and strive to complete it as a species, or whether it is imposed on us because we cannot stop our addiction to growth and push the planet's ecosystem beyond a tipping point is a different story.
The research used for this OER suggests that at the current pace of things, the latter scenario is the one most likely to happen. Politics and people in power don't seem to grasp the urgency we are facing, and essential lifestyle changes, such as a reduction in consumption, are not encouraged; instead, we are told 'green growth' is the way of the future.
Change is needed both from the top, in terms of how decisions are made and how policies are devised, but degrowth and change in all fields, including digital education also need to come from everyday people as they realise the leading cause of the climate crisis is growth and overconsumption.