Thank you, Barbara, for this.

There are so many issues and challenges here! You are right about almost everything here...and perhaps even everything. Some things are certain—like the chemistry that guarantees ever worsening conditions as long as our species engages in deadly foolish activities at a gigantic scale, particularly continued fossil fuel use and excreting gigatons of CO2 every year.

In forming the way The Saners presents its views, I started with a laboratory of one—what would motivate me? And then, in discussing these ideas with others, the movement evolved into what it is today.

Aspects of The Saners resembles other ideologies and movements. Most of this is coincidental. And yet, it DOES have significant commonalities with the degrowth movement and Extinction Rebellion.

But it also has differences. Indeed, had either of these movements been fully satisfactory to me (and I do deeply admire both!), I would have joined and there would be no Saners.

In deciding what to do, I started with the notion that (actual, non-corporate) scientists understand the science better than I ever could, and that THEY can and should guide much of what we do to fix the crisis. There's a lot but the simplest (and one of the most crucial) pieces of that is slashing the use of fossil fuels to minimize CO2 emissions. I talk about that a lot, even though it's NOT everything that's required—but it's essential and easily understood.

So, why would I not use the terms "overshoot" and "degrowth" ? Why would I NOT simply endorse and join Extinction Rebellion, or some other group?

The reason is this: I am focused on finding something that WORKS, that will actually change things. I'm not worried about the science because I trust science—and others are well-qualified to handle that (really, really) important part.

So, I've been thinking—intensely and for more than a year—about movements and what makes some succeed and some fail. I've tried to build The Saners are strategies and tactics that have the maximum chance of success.

I think groups like Extinction Rebellion are brilliant and noble. But that they won't succeed. Of course, neither may The Saners, but we are offering something different and something that, I am certain, COULD succeed.

Degrowth, as a term and a movement, seems negative and drives people away. It sounds like you are taking something away. The Saners points out that we aren't taking anything away—production will go down even without a movement because it is unsustainable. But The Saners wants "degrowth" in an intentional and less traumatic way. The Saners wants to trade stuff for more time, more LIFE. This is far more attractive than simply sacrificing and learning to live with less.

What The Saners is offering is the same as degrowth, but also different.

Something similar can be said of "overshoot." Our species is straining the resources of Earth, and abusing the ecology of the planet. We have already done permanent, terrible, irreversible damage.

But what is the "carrying capacity" of the Earth when production is slashed by 80%-90%? Yes, we should reduce population, not keep growing it. This makes sense for so many reasons. But I don't see the point of promoting the idea of overshoot—which, I think, simply depresses people and makes them give up.

Now, The Saners isn't simply a PR plan, putting a happy face on a terrible situation. It's a vision and a possibility that I absolutely and completely believe in. This vision is exciting, inspiring and within reach—IF we do the right things.

Ah, but WHAT ARE THE RIGHT THINGS?!

That's where nonviolent noncooperation comes in. This is the strategy pioneered and advanced by Gandhi and King—and many, many others. This is a movement strategy with a long history of (amazing!) success. And this is the approach I've been studying and forms the core of The Saners movement.

I can't explain it fully here. Much of what I've been working on is finding a good way to explain this compactly. But here's a few points...

1. Nonviolent noncooperation means withdrawing cooperation from whatever leaders and behaviors (or policies) that are doing the harm you are trying to reverse.

2. This approach works because anything being done needs people to do them. Thus, if enough people refuse to extract oil, or induce others to refuse to extract oil, there can be a labor shortage or disruption that cripples or ends oil extraction.

3. Leaders and systems draw their "power" from obedience and cooperation of people who do the work for them. Without sufficient active support, these systems and leaders become impotent.

4. Because movements are small and weak when they start, they need a clever strategy to grow and begin having more impact. The tactics should escalate until the power is with the movement, and not the old order.

5. History (and studies by social scientists) shows that nonviolent movements succeed twice as often as violent ones. And nonviolent movements have a much better change of replacing the old order with something better than violent ones.

I see other movements (except for violent ones) as beneficial and admirable. But I don't see them as sufficient to get the job done. Thus, lobbying the UK government can put a critical speed bump in the way of planet abusers—like that government. But we ultimately need to do more than convince those who are causing the destruction to change. We need to end their capacity for abuse.

I think that The Saners right now is pretty consistent with the wording you use at the end of the essay. Except The Saners expresses its goals in the form of a carrot to reach for more than as a stick to avoid.

There is much more in your essay worthy of discussing and considering. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your thoughts and words and insights. Please feel free to contact me anytime. You can use the contact form on The Saners website, and I can send you my email address privately.

In 2025, there will be many more avenues of communication for The Saners, including an online community (a beta exists now) and frequent live online group chats.