Thank you for this perspective into the "behind the scenes" of sustainability work. I do admire the attempt to provide people with more ethical options within the current social/economic framework but the thing that bothers me is at the end of the day, we are still incentivized to continue participating in the current model of exploitation (and that is when we are given a choice at all). Only by removing the systems that put people in these kinds of conundrums in the first place (and, probably, by learning to live with less) are we going to see any real change.
Thank you for reading, Fiona. I deeply resonate with what you’re saying. There’s something profoundly disheartening about how even our “ethical choices” are often framed within, and limited by, the same system that created the harm in the first place. And navigating the contradictions of trying to “do good” within a system that is fundamentally extractive is one of the hardest parts of this work.
And yes, I agree with you, I believe that real transformation requires not just better choices within the system, but a reimagining of the system itself — including our relationship to consumption, productivity, and what we understand as a “good life.” Sometimes offering “less harmful” options feels like patching leaks on a sinking ship… but I also see it as a way to support people in shifting their perspectives, values, and habits, and hopefully plant seeds for deeper systemic change. ♡
Absolutely could not agree more. I also worked in the "sustainability" world and often felt this same discomfort. I am also reveling through Mexico now and have found a lot of inspiration in Mayan philosophy (and milpas). Have you heard of the degrowth movement? I think you would really connect with their philosophy :)
Thank you so much for reading and for sharing your experience! I really appreciate it :)
I love that you’re finding inspiration in Mayan philosophy and milpas; there’s so much wisdom there about reciprocity and interdependence. And yes, I’m familiar with the degrowth movement! I think it offers such an important counter-narrative to mainstream sustainability discourse. What aspects of it resonate with you the most? I may write about this, what do you think? ♡♡♡
Yes—honestly reading your piece was like a look inside my own brain, but different. And I love that!
I agree, I find degrowth to be the best explained counter-narrative Ive come across so far. I think its very interesting to explore alongside other resistance movements.
Glad I found this piece when I did. Thank you for your honesty and for speaking on the fact that green capitalism is still capitalism! I think sustainability is great in the sense that we can inform people and work on changing consumerist habits, but what does it actually mean for our planet when even with these alternatives, big corporations and polluters continue to do business as usual? It feels futile. I also did some research back in uni about TEK and what it could mean if we explored other types of knowledge systems besides Western science. Yes, there could be some great technological advancements that could help us address climate change/environmental degradation, but we also already have all the tools and resources to change. Loved this piece btw, can't wait to read more from you<3
This is such a lovely comment, thank you so much for reading. I'm glad this piece resonated with you. That tension between knowing change is possible and watching the same systems repeat themselves is something I carry too. But, yes! you're right! There’s already so much wisdom, knowledge, and relational intelligence in this world. Traditional Ecological Knowledge, ancestral technologies, embodied memory… they all hold keys to how we might live differently, not just as individuals, but as communities in kinship with the Earth. ♡Thank you again and will love to "see" more of you here.
It's not capitalism that needs constant growth, but mankind. There is no human system that doesn't require constant growth and it's a result of human nature.
Past a certain age a person cannot sustain themselves with their labour alone and depends on labour of others. Historically you needed to have children, today you have a pension system, but end result is the same, each subsequent generation needs more people than the previous one to provide for the elderly of the previous generation.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate the chance to dig into these ideas.
There’s a common confusion here between biological or social interdependence and economic expansionism. The idea that “all human systems require constant growth” actually mixes up two very different things: on the one hand, the way humans rely on each other across generations (which is about care, reciprocity, and support), and on the other, the economic drive for endless expansion (which is about extracting more and more value, often without regard for limits).
Relational growth-like caring for elders, raising children, or supporting our communities-is about regeneration and mutual flourishing. It’s fundamentally different from the kind of exploitative growth that capitalism tends to institutionalize: one that seeks more and more profit, often at the expense of Others (whether people, species, or entire ecosystems).
So: care vs extraction. An ethics of care is not about endless giving or consumption. It’s about mutuality, limits, and responsiveness. It is deeply relational, and it thrives within cyclical, sufficiency-based systems, not in economies that demand perpetual acceleration and accumulation.
It’s also worth pointing out that saying something is “natural” doesn’t automatically make it ethical, inevitable, or beyond critique. Philosophers call this the naturalistic fallacy: just because something happens in nature (or has happened in history) doesn’t mean it’s the way things should be, or that we can’t choose differently. Human societies are always shaped by the stories we tell and the values we hold -not just by some "fixed human nature”.
So maybe the deeper question isn’t whether growth is “human nature,” but what kind of growth we want to nurture -and for whom. If we confuse care with extraction, we risk missing out on the possibility of building systems that are actually sustainable, just, and life-affirming.
I will not deny that capitalism and consumerism further growth more than the baseline needed to sustain mankind, but mankind does demand growth if we are to live past the age of 60. Old people cannot take care of themselves, and this has been the case in any system in history of mankind: hunter-gatherering, feudalism, capitalism, communism, all of them.
When I say that it is human nature, I don't mean that it is natural so it is good, I mean that it is a result of human biology and is unavoidable unless somehow miraculously people become so productive they can provide for themselves and several other people.
Old people cannot take care of themselves, either each subsequent generation has more people to take of the elderly, or we let people die once they're incapable of providing for themselves. Letting old people die will stop the requirement for constant growth.
This is the reason why all the global governments are panicking over the fall in fertility rates, regardless of economy or political system they have, they know what is coming.
Reality of the matter is that there's no sustainability or balance in nature, species will eat and breed themselves into oblivion if they're allowed to, it's famine, predation, and disease which keeps them "in balance" with nature.
We defeated predation millennia ago when we discovered tools.
We defeated famine in 19th century with discovery of fertilising properties of bird shit, we used it all up by early 20th century and if not for Haber's discovery of Haber process which lets us turn nitrogen from the air into ammonia, we would've been reduced to famine again.
We defeated disease in 20th century through modern chemistry and pharmacology.
We have one more means which animals lack of keeping our numbers down, war, but so far it seems we have defeated it on July 16th 1945 when we detonated the first atom bomb.
There are 8 billion people on this planet, demographic transition did make that number grow from 2 billion people to 8 billion in under a hundred years, way faster than needed to sustain the elderly, but they are here now and need to be fed and clothed, and only means of doing so is industry.
Over 80% of energy produced is produced from fossil fuels, there is no known technological means to avoid them and sustain the current standard of life and the current population numbers, anybody who says otherwise either doesn't know what he is talking about or is lying. What sustainable and cyclical way is there to extract coal, oil, natural gas, copper, iron, aluminium, potash, phosphorus, and all the other resources required to produce machinery and food needed to feed 8 billion people?
Thank you for this. I love your honesty about the way we need to reconsider sustainability in relation to green capitalism. Businesses offering sustainable options or recycled packaging is definitely not enough.
I’ve dreamed for a couple years of working in fashion sustainability, but the more I learn about the capitalist system, as well as what I hear regarding how alienating and exhausting a sustainability job can be (plus the miniscule difference you can actually make when fighting ideas against profit-focused team members), the dream becomes less idealistic.
This is such a confronting and realistic piece, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, tips and concepts ❤️🔥
Thank you so much for reading and for your thoughtful comment, Abby!
I completely understand that disillusionment. For a long time, I believed that change could only come from within the system: adapting, negotiating, trying to make “sustainability” work inside spaces that fundamentally resist it.
But over time (honestly, it took me nearly a decade), I began to see how powerful it can be to stop adapting ... and start creating. The seemingly small choices (how we speak, what we value, the work we build from the ground up) can be far more radical than struggling to shift what was never designed to be fair, just, or ecological in the first place.
Thank you for this perspective into the "behind the scenes" of sustainability work. I do admire the attempt to provide people with more ethical options within the current social/economic framework but the thing that bothers me is at the end of the day, we are still incentivized to continue participating in the current model of exploitation (and that is when we are given a choice at all). Only by removing the systems that put people in these kinds of conundrums in the first place (and, probably, by learning to live with less) are we going to see any real change.
Thank you for reading, Fiona. I deeply resonate with what you’re saying. There’s something profoundly disheartening about how even our “ethical choices” are often framed within, and limited by, the same system that created the harm in the first place. And navigating the contradictions of trying to “do good” within a system that is fundamentally extractive is one of the hardest parts of this work.
And yes, I agree with you, I believe that real transformation requires not just better choices within the system, but a reimagining of the system itself — including our relationship to consumption, productivity, and what we understand as a “good life.” Sometimes offering “less harmful” options feels like patching leaks on a sinking ship… but I also see it as a way to support people in shifting their perspectives, values, and habits, and hopefully plant seeds for deeper systemic change. ♡
Absolutely could not agree more. I also worked in the "sustainability" world and often felt this same discomfort. I am also reveling through Mexico now and have found a lot of inspiration in Mayan philosophy (and milpas). Have you heard of the degrowth movement? I think you would really connect with their philosophy :)
Thank you so much for reading and for sharing your experience! I really appreciate it :)
I love that you’re finding inspiration in Mayan philosophy and milpas; there’s so much wisdom there about reciprocity and interdependence. And yes, I’m familiar with the degrowth movement! I think it offers such an important counter-narrative to mainstream sustainability discourse. What aspects of it resonate with you the most? I may write about this, what do you think? ♡♡♡
Yes—honestly reading your piece was like a look inside my own brain, but different. And I love that!
I agree, I find degrowth to be the best explained counter-narrative Ive come across so far. I think its very interesting to explore alongside other resistance movements.
Oh, I love that too lol! I’ll definitely want your input when I dive deeper into this in future posts. Thanks again, truly! ✨
I struggle to understand why there’s such ground-level resistance to changing a system where most of the ground-level gets the short end of the stick.
Thanks, Ximena!
You're absolutely right. One of the system's most insidious weapons is when the very people it exploits end up defending it.
Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts ♡
Glad I found this piece when I did. Thank you for your honesty and for speaking on the fact that green capitalism is still capitalism! I think sustainability is great in the sense that we can inform people and work on changing consumerist habits, but what does it actually mean for our planet when even with these alternatives, big corporations and polluters continue to do business as usual? It feels futile. I also did some research back in uni about TEK and what it could mean if we explored other types of knowledge systems besides Western science. Yes, there could be some great technological advancements that could help us address climate change/environmental degradation, but we also already have all the tools and resources to change. Loved this piece btw, can't wait to read more from you<3
This is such a lovely comment, thank you so much for reading. I'm glad this piece resonated with you. That tension between knowing change is possible and watching the same systems repeat themselves is something I carry too. But, yes! you're right! There’s already so much wisdom, knowledge, and relational intelligence in this world. Traditional Ecological Knowledge, ancestral technologies, embodied memory… they all hold keys to how we might live differently, not just as individuals, but as communities in kinship with the Earth. ♡Thank you again and will love to "see" more of you here.
Loved this read! You make tons of good points, and I couldn't agree more. Thank you for sharing!
Thank you so much! I'm glad this resonated with you! ♡
It's not capitalism that needs constant growth, but mankind. There is no human system that doesn't require constant growth and it's a result of human nature.
Past a certain age a person cannot sustain themselves with their labour alone and depends on labour of others. Historically you needed to have children, today you have a pension system, but end result is the same, each subsequent generation needs more people than the previous one to provide for the elderly of the previous generation.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate the chance to dig into these ideas.
There’s a common confusion here between biological or social interdependence and economic expansionism. The idea that “all human systems require constant growth” actually mixes up two very different things: on the one hand, the way humans rely on each other across generations (which is about care, reciprocity, and support), and on the other, the economic drive for endless expansion (which is about extracting more and more value, often without regard for limits).
Relational growth-like caring for elders, raising children, or supporting our communities-is about regeneration and mutual flourishing. It’s fundamentally different from the kind of exploitative growth that capitalism tends to institutionalize: one that seeks more and more profit, often at the expense of Others (whether people, species, or entire ecosystems).
So: care vs extraction. An ethics of care is not about endless giving or consumption. It’s about mutuality, limits, and responsiveness. It is deeply relational, and it thrives within cyclical, sufficiency-based systems, not in economies that demand perpetual acceleration and accumulation.
It’s also worth pointing out that saying something is “natural” doesn’t automatically make it ethical, inevitable, or beyond critique. Philosophers call this the naturalistic fallacy: just because something happens in nature (or has happened in history) doesn’t mean it’s the way things should be, or that we can’t choose differently. Human societies are always shaped by the stories we tell and the values we hold -not just by some "fixed human nature”.
So maybe the deeper question isn’t whether growth is “human nature,” but what kind of growth we want to nurture -and for whom. If we confuse care with extraction, we risk missing out on the possibility of building systems that are actually sustainable, just, and life-affirming.
I will not deny that capitalism and consumerism further growth more than the baseline needed to sustain mankind, but mankind does demand growth if we are to live past the age of 60. Old people cannot take care of themselves, and this has been the case in any system in history of mankind: hunter-gatherering, feudalism, capitalism, communism, all of them.
When I say that it is human nature, I don't mean that it is natural so it is good, I mean that it is a result of human biology and is unavoidable unless somehow miraculously people become so productive they can provide for themselves and several other people.
Old people cannot take care of themselves, either each subsequent generation has more people to take of the elderly, or we let people die once they're incapable of providing for themselves. Letting old people die will stop the requirement for constant growth.
This is the reason why all the global governments are panicking over the fall in fertility rates, regardless of economy or political system they have, they know what is coming.
Reality of the matter is that there's no sustainability or balance in nature, species will eat and breed themselves into oblivion if they're allowed to, it's famine, predation, and disease which keeps them "in balance" with nature.
We defeated predation millennia ago when we discovered tools.
We defeated famine in 19th century with discovery of fertilising properties of bird shit, we used it all up by early 20th century and if not for Haber's discovery of Haber process which lets us turn nitrogen from the air into ammonia, we would've been reduced to famine again.
We defeated disease in 20th century through modern chemistry and pharmacology.
We have one more means which animals lack of keeping our numbers down, war, but so far it seems we have defeated it on July 16th 1945 when we detonated the first atom bomb.
There are 8 billion people on this planet, demographic transition did make that number grow from 2 billion people to 8 billion in under a hundred years, way faster than needed to sustain the elderly, but they are here now and need to be fed and clothed, and only means of doing so is industry.
Over 80% of energy produced is produced from fossil fuels, there is no known technological means to avoid them and sustain the current standard of life and the current population numbers, anybody who says otherwise either doesn't know what he is talking about or is lying. What sustainable and cyclical way is there to extract coal, oil, natural gas, copper, iron, aluminium, potash, phosphorus, and all the other resources required to produce machinery and food needed to feed 8 billion people?
Thank you for this. I love your honesty about the way we need to reconsider sustainability in relation to green capitalism. Businesses offering sustainable options or recycled packaging is definitely not enough.
I’ve dreamed for a couple years of working in fashion sustainability, but the more I learn about the capitalist system, as well as what I hear regarding how alienating and exhausting a sustainability job can be (plus the miniscule difference you can actually make when fighting ideas against profit-focused team members), the dream becomes less idealistic.
This is such a confronting and realistic piece, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, tips and concepts ❤️🔥
Thank you so much for reading and for your thoughtful comment, Abby!
I completely understand that disillusionment. For a long time, I believed that change could only come from within the system: adapting, negotiating, trying to make “sustainability” work inside spaces that fundamentally resist it.
But over time (honestly, it took me nearly a decade), I began to see how powerful it can be to stop adapting ... and start creating. The seemingly small choices (how we speak, what we value, the work we build from the ground up) can be far more radical than struggling to shift what was never designed to be fair, just, or ecological in the first place.
i'm so glad this piece resonated with you ❤️🔥