Maja Göpel is a transformation researcher, sustainability expert and social scholar with an emphasis on transdisciplinary approaches. She is an honorary professor at Leuphana University of Lüneburg and one of the most important contemporary voices regarding the question of how we can make our society fit for the future again. In her books, “Unsere Welt neu denken” (Rethinking Our World – 2020) and “Wir können auch anders” (We can do things differently – 2022), she deals with issues of sustainability and social justice. Since the publication of these books, she has a reputation as one of the most important thought leaders for an ecologically focused world. Maja Göpel is an Allianz Foundation Fellow.
Esra Kücük is Chief Executive Officer of the Allianz Foundation. Her work focuses on future-oriented issues in a changing society and is committed to issues such as cultural participation and social justice in times of transformation.
Esra Kücük: As the Allianz Foundation, we want to enable better living conditions for the next generations. You made me think with what you said at last year’s re:publica festival, “We are now living in an era that is incomparable with the last 10,000 years.” What did you mean by that?
Maja Göpel: The idea of a new era comes from geologists. Studying the layers of the earth tells us so much about how the earth used to look like and which forms of life were quasi carved into the surface of the earth. It was in this context that geologist coined the term “Anthropocene”. “Anthropos” come from the Ancient Greek, means humans, upright walking humans. I think it is nice because the term upright can also be understood as an attitude. Our era, the Anthropocene, needs an upright attitude. Anthropocene because we are the ones who are actually changing this earth’s system: We are making nature! We have become the driving force of change for ecological systems. There are so many of us humans, especially in the 20th century, and at the same time we intervene in the earth with increasing intensity. We can measure this on per capita consumption, in other words how many resources or energy is consumed per person.
Esra Kücük: There is no lack of knowledge regarding the resulting problem. We know that a “business as usual” is not possible. How can we manage the transformation from knowledge to changing attitudes, to specific action for a climate-neutral everyday life?
Maja Göpel: When we look at the reactions to reports like “The Limits to Growth” from 1972, they were very defensive. The modeling at the time was aimed at thinking about trends together: how many resources do we extract from the ground, how much pollution does it produce? How much food can we then produce? How will the number of people increase from this? The report wanted to show that it is important to think differently at an earlier stage, in other words, think about renewable energy or focus agriculture in a regenerative way.
The prevailing narrative, the cultural makeup, the story of success until then was: we can always invent something new if something is limited! If some resources become rare, the prices will increase and then we will think of something new. Optimization, new technologies, or increasing efficiency were the solutions. But earth systems are living netwerks, not experiment sets with natural resources. We cannot simply remove or build them back up.
And we have thought far too little about why we still need more and more – of everything. And these are the so-called rebound effects. The success story was: “We ensure our peaceful coexistence with more. More is constantly created and then everyone can also get more.” In this narrative, we never seriously reach the point of talking about the distribution of a pie – it can get bigger if someone complains.” From my perspective, we have now reached the point for the first time – seen globally and in rich countries as well – where it becomes clear that there are not really the ingredients for more pies. It is important to honestly describe it so we can answer the question of how to approach it as cooperatively as possible instead of confrontationally.
For example, how unbelievably dependent we are today on the flow of goods networked globally. This was demonstrated once again by the pandemic and the war against Ukraine. And how strongly conflicts are built on access to resources and flows of goods. We have to consider: How can we globally organize supply security much better? By practicing regenerative agriculture and correspondingly reestablishing our ecological capital. By moving away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and retaining framework conditions for the climate that are as stable as possible. By developing new technologies that explicitly aim at these solutions and not at further improving the ease and consumer habits of people with purchasing power. For example, how can digital instruments support a circular economy that maintains the material needs of economies on a long-term regenerative level?
Even when it is really unpleasant, first by an honest description of the problem can we find these solutions. We greatly avoid this first step and then invent so many solutions that reduce the short-term symptoms, but do not take care of the cause of the overuse. But it is enormously important to consider social and ecological issues together.
Esra Kücük: But can we actually make a difference as people? Or is that not the task for industry and politics?
Maja Göpel: I think both. It is important to consider who can press which buttons. And of course as citizens we are also acting as consumers. I can kick-start a cultural change by reaching into a shelf or asking about the origin of products or my investments. And in this way, narratives and ideas of what is “normal” change as well. Social sciences clearly show that picturing what my peer group considers important and right often has a greater influence on my behavior than my isolated view of the topic.