We Need Radical Hope, Not Radical Acceptance

Words matter

Lately, I’ve been reading a lot about radical acceptance and how it is the right way to think about climate change and other aspects of our polycrisis. My initial reaction was visceral: NO! Radical acceptance will doom us to inaction! It elevates passivity and devalues the many steps we need to take to mitigate the damage we have inflicted on the planet, our fellow humans, and most other species.

But when I’ve suggested this to some of my favorite writers, who have been tossing the term around recently, I’ve been told I’ve got it all wrong. Radical acceptance doesn’t mean what I think it means (echoes of Inigo Montoya here).

Here are some examples of how the term has been defined recently:

So what is radical acceptance? For me, it means: accepting that no single technological civilization based on finite resources is sustainable. Neither in the bronze age, nor in the iron age; let alone in an era of industrial revolutions. (source)

We are well beyond a soft landing for the planet. There are no moderate pathways ahead. The only move we have left is radical acceptance of our situation, of the human predicament. (source)

“Radical Acceptance” of the coming COLLAPSE is NOT about “giving up”. It’s about accepting that Collapse is happening. So that we can stop holding on “to the world that was” AND start the “Managed Retreat” to the “world that will be”. (source)