Even though there is very real ecological destruction that is happening that could develop into the most nightmarish scenarios, the most extreme disasters on the scale of the entire planet are not inevitable in the next century. Current trends of ecological destruction will not necessarily continue to exist until the point where it destroys civilization. There will surely be at least some increases in ecological disasters caused by thousands of years of hierarchical development and centuries of capitalist development. There are causes that happened years ago that we have not seen the effects of yet. But such increases in ecological crises do not necessarily entail that the worst possible forecasts are going to happen.

Rather than preparing for and waiting for collapse like it is some inevitable apocalypse that will happen regardless of what people and organizations do, we should be acting to stop and minimize the climate crisis through direct action against the causes of ecological destruction–such as but not limited to direct action against fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure. However, such approaches are insufficient. There are underlying causes to specific causes of ecological destruction. Capitalism instrumentalizes humans and the entire biosphere and even outer space to profit maximization. Capitalism creates an imperative to “grow or die”. If capitalists do not instrumentalize nature towards profit, then they will fall behind competitively compared to capitalists that do (Moore). States not only enforce such capitalist competition and expansion, but states have their own anti-ecological logic. States must compete against the people they rule over and external forces in regards to their ability to muster of violence–and the militaristic technics to do so. Given that social problems–especially problems of hierarchy and capitalism specifically– cause such ecological problems, we need to be building towards revolution (Bookchin 2004). This means not just addressing specific causes of ecological destruction such as fossil fuels, but also addressing root causes of such specific causes. In order to do so, we must build utopia through reconstructive politics and oppositional politics. Such an approach for human and ecological flourishing means we must create horizontally governed political economic structures rooted in cooperative conflict that have collective decision making and rules without rulers (Ostrom 2018). This also means utilizing liberatory technology in conjunction with such horizontalist institutions such as but not limited to solar, wind, and geothermal energy, energy efficiency, public transport, agro-ecology and organic agriculture, biochar, reforestation, library based access systems, as well as recyclable and regenerative materials. The above approach towards dealing with ecological problems is informed by the general worldview of social ecology.

If and when ecological crises of various kinds and magnitudes happen that have not happened yet, then strategically prefigured dual power projects that are built up are at the very least some of the most important things we need for community resilience and filling power vacuums leftover by the state and capitalism. Without such people powered alternatives in tandem with people being used to organizing together in horizontalist ways, power vacuums created by various crises are likely to be filled by hierarchical and arbitrary forms of rule– the very kinds of social arrangements at the roots of ecological problems. A revolutionary approach can be posed to the hyper individualistic prepper mentality of merely trying to survive on one’s own or with a few people. Furthermore such a revolutionary approach can be posed against a mentality that extrapolates current trends into the future as if there is no alternative. If people are not building towards revolution and are merely prepping for collapse then their organizations and movements (to the degree that they exist) are merely playing defense–and doing so poorly compared to movements that also go on the offense by attempting to gain victories through oppositional politics while also building collectives and actions fueled by a reconstructive and revolutionary political vision and practice.

Even if the most extreme of hopeless pessimists are right that large scale collapse of the most extreme magnitudes is inevitable–which they are not right about– then they should still be social ecologists. Given goals of social freedom, egalitarianism, and ecological flourishing: They should still analyze such ecological problems as caused by social problems (such as hierarchy rather than mere technology without adjectives or mere civilization without adjectives). They should still seek to build people powered technology that is decentralized, ecological, and miniaturized with function redundancy and contingencies. They should still seek to create functional mutual aid collectives and networks to communalize reproductive labor for constant crises of business as usual and more extreme crises. They should still try to develop decentralized federalism to help with mutual aid across people and organizations and communities. They should still be in favor of direct action collectives and networks with strategic oppositional politics for goals such as human freedom and ecological flourishing. They should still be in favor of developing popular education and skill shares– because propositional knowledge and social theory will still be relevant in extreme disasters that leave humans existing. They should still support people powered institutions and community relationships built up combined with practical knowledge of how to make decisions without hierarchy. If done strategically, the above approaches are part of a potential development that could help build mass movements which would strengthen all of the above “components” compared to any such components in reduction. Such an approach can minimize ecological crises better than other strategies. And last but not least, such an approach can create revolutions that deal with root causes of ecological crises. Of course, not all of the above entails survival skills being maximized for any specific individual. Developing general interdependent community resilience is more important for overall flourishing of freedom of persons and collectives than mere individual skills–as important as such skills can be.

Propositional knowledge (know-that) and practical knowledge (know-how) needed for (and/or desirable for) revolution, harm reduction, and survival in various crises are best transmuted to as many people as possible through skill-shares that interface with popular local organizations. But the nihilistic pessimists are not right and their inevitable global apocalypse theories are forms of pseudoscience that deny actual possibilities while being in part based on a very real and temporally urgent possibility of accelerated large scale ecological destruction (on top of ecological destruction that is already happening from hierarchy induced climate change and other ecological issues). Such a “there is no alternative” approach, to the degree it is generalized, will indeed help damn us all given that collective action is a caused causal factor of the world (bounded by various conditions) with indirect longterm effects. If we do not actively abolish the root social causes of ecological problems–through strategically prefigured libertarian socialist forms of dual power in conjunction with liberatory technology– then we will surely continue on a path towards large scale ecological destruction. And if some of the most extreme of crises happen, given humans are still alive, it will still be a social ecological framework that can help guide us towards better social ecological relations from that point onward. However, we should of course always adapt social ecology to new relevant variables and conditions as they emerge and as we are made aware of them. A claim that the most minimal necessary features of social ecology are sound does not mean that it should be a static theory and practice and does not mean that it should not be critically investigated by persons overtime to see if its most essential dimensions are sound in the face of new evidence.

Endnotes:

Bookchin, Murray. Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Oakland, Canada: AK Press, 2004.

Moore, Jason W. “The Capitalocene, Part I: on the Nature and Origins of Our Ecological Crisis.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 44, no. 3 (2017): 594–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1235036.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.