Anthropause: The Beauty of Degrowth By Stan Cox Seven Stories Press, 2026

“Anthropause” is an amazing word and the latest book about it is an eye-opener. Stan Cox’s Anthropause: The Beauty of Degrowth, does what far too few degrowth books do — it first focuses readers’ attention to the positive experiences we could enjoy in a society less dedicated to producing unnecessary stuff. It then details the destructiveness of overproduction.

As the inside jacket describes,

In the spring of 2020, people worldwide found themselves confined to their homes due to pandemic lockdown orders. Global carbon emissions suddenly plunged 8.8%, bodies of water became noticeably clearer, and animal life returned to the spaces that humans deserted. Scientists deemed this phenomenon as “anthropause,” as nature flourished in response to the decrease in human activity. For a moment, the world witnessed the beauty of degrowth.

Of course, this was not without immense human suffering, exacerbated by vaccination denial and insufficient treatment. It was nothing like John Bellamy Foster’s “ planned degrowth,” which is based on designing how to minimise harmful effects of reducing unnecessary and harmful production.

Origins and futures

Cox familiarises readers with classic concepts of degrowth, including Herman Daly’s steady state economy, André Gorz’ décroissance (reducing material production), and George Kallis’ analysis of “ throughput.” His ideas go far, as he stands on the shoulders of recent works such as Jason Hickel’s Less Is More (2020) and Kohei Saito’s Slow Down (English edition, 2024).

Anthropause demystifies the term “degrowth” by explaining it in ways the average reader can understand. Cox makes it clear that the difficulty is not really understanding what degrowth would be, but rather the controversy it would arouse and the enormous political barriers that such an unprecedented alteration in human behavior would face.

The book covers two changes that could well become classic examples of positive outcomes of degrowth, which people would experience in their daily lives. The first is auditory. Imagine a world without noisy electrical gadgets such as leaf blowers and lawn movers. It would be a world where people could actually hear sounds that were prevalent only a few decades ago: insects, bird songs and children playing. Another COVID-19 event happened when people in San Francisco could hear more vocalisations of the white-crowned sparrow as traffic noise dropped.

The other everyday (or everynight) experience that could be reborn is actually seeing the stars that ancient cultures found essential to civilisation throughout their existence. Eliminating the blinding light of businesses and drastically reducing street and car lights will re-grow the human skill of navigating in darkness.

The need to do both of these is more than aesthetic pleasure. Deafening noise and noxious lights unnecessarily use energy, the major source of environmental crises, whether fossil fuels or “alternative”. Excess noise damages health in a variety of ways. Over-lighting contributes to the perilous insect die-off and disrupts many animal behaviors. It is most serious for bats who have an unpaid job of improving human health by devouring mosquitoes.

Land and farms

One of the strongest parts of Anthropause grows out of the author’s 25 years at the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas. He explains that by changing farming and reducing land usage we could have food that tastes better, is more nutritious, and contains fewer toxic chemicals. We would be healthier, have fewer diseases and enjoy more natural spaces in which to spend time.

Native Americans would have large amounts of land returned, allowing them to nurture and care for it as their ancestors did for millennia. As consumption of meat decreases there will be fewer meatpacking workers averaging two work-related amputations per week.

Cox traces the current terrible state of US food production to annual crop mono-cultures, soil tillage and factory “farming” (CAFOs, concentrated animal-feeding operations). Strongly connected is the fact that 90% of US farmland is devoted to four crops: corn, soybean, cotton and wheat. Of these, only wheat is used mainly for human food.

Changes called for would include an end to CAFOs, encouraging small farms with multiple crops, and a huge decrease in land used to grow animal feed. Degradation of farmland has been a long time coming and degrowing it to a more rational status will not occur overnight and will not happen without massive opposition from Big Ag.

But there would be a drawback from degrowing farming – most would not have fresh strawberries and tomatoes in winter. Degrowth would require overcoming the belief that those in the rich world should have instant gratification of every whim, regardless of consequences.

Yes, the military must de degrown

Another area where Anthropause shines is the way it takes on militarism. It is disappointing that only a few degrowth articles devote a full analysis to the plague of militarism, if they address it at all. [For a noteworthy exception see Burton and Lin (2023).]

Perhaps the most significant benefit from degrowing the nuclear behemoth is that people would have less reason to worry about the extinction of humanity and millions of other species. The threat includes greenhouse gas release by military production and employment.

An immediate quality of life improvement would be reduction of deaths by bombs, starvation and disease. Even more lives are shortened by toxins that war production spreads across the globe.

Degrowth of militarism would benefit those living near US bases and the 800 US bases across the globe. They would worry less about being “kicked off their land,” being poisoned by ubiquitous toxins, and enduring high crime rates, especially for rape.

As with land usage and most other aspects of degrowing, there would be bumps on the road. The first would be finding jobs for the 3 million people who work directly in military employment, plus those working in support industries. Also, “zombie pollution” will long remain in areas where military bases are shut down.

Concerns

Despite its great contributions, I do have a few concerns with the book.

First, I was surprised with a couple of approving references to “renewable energy.” No energy is renewable. By now it is almost trite to repeat “Even though the sun may shine, the rivers may flow, and the wind may blow, the minerals to transform what they collect into usable energy is finite and exhaustible.” Wars for alternative energy can be as deadly as those for fossil fuels.

Second, the book only mentions Ernest Callenbach’s Ecotopia* *in the index. It is a 1960-70s era fantasy of what an ecological society might look like, including new social norms, interpersonal relationships, politics, military and spies inside of it. Ecotopia weaves complex themes together in ways that authors since have not accomplished.

Third, the book’s brief review of air conditioning should inspire readers to see Cox’s more extensive analysis in Losing Our Cool* *(2010) Missing in *Anthropause *were suggestions for reducing air conditioning. Since a major complaint about it is over-air conditioned buildings, legal routes for degrowth jump out at us: pass laws limiting temperature lows in schools, public buildings and businesses.

Last, Anthropause has a very good discussion of the very bad realities of private cars. Yet, it seemed that the goal to “reduce” aimed too short. Why not aim to make them as extinct as CAFOs?

The book makes a good case that we could live better without cars. There would not have been 7388 pedestrians killed by cars in 2021. The ongoing switch to SUVs only increases dangers. In addition to carbon dioxide emissions, particulate matter which spews to roadsides is even worse with heavier E-cars. The need for multiple parking spaces per car results in more and more impervious surfaces, which increases flooding.

However, abolishing private cars does not mean getting rid of all cars. I fondly remember reserving a car when I worked at St. Louis State Hospital for 25 years. I just called the car pool guy and found a time one would be available. I did not have to worry about maintenance or license plates because the hospital department took care of it.

A degrowing world would be able to manage individual transportation needs with walkable communities that relied on some combination of walking, cycling, horseback riding, carriages, motorcycles and golf carts (for those with disabilities).

New thoughts

The contributions of Anthropause are mind-bending. It should be on the bookshelf of all of the growing number of degrowth enthusiasts.

To repeat, its most significant feature is its focus on how people could enjoy degrowth. Like other recent authors, Cox points out that capitalism requires growth, making it incompatible with human and environmental needs.

Similarly, he notes that degrowth inspires people to struggle against racism and colonialism. Capitalist growth is based on creating a poor world for the rich world to exploit, and that poor world is populated mainly by people of colour, especially those in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Cox explains that some define “degrowth as decline.” Environmentalists with this approach emphasise the need to remove negative things, processes and attitudes that permeate US life.

Though he covers this thoroughly, he actually prefers the definition of “growth at emancipation.” This perspective aims to liberate humanity from social ills that result in sickness, detachment from nature, and loss of habitat by “living within ecological limits.” People can actually be happier hearing natural sounds, seeing stars at night, eating food that tastes like food, enjoying natural spaces and being freed from military agony.

This points in a direction that could make degrowth at least somewhat attractive to the general public. Since dislike of advertisement seems to be close to universal, that might be a good plank for degrowth platforms.

Cox’s book on Losing our Cool* *(2010) observes that people dislike over-air-conditioned buildings. There could be wide support for regulations putting limits on how much temperatures can be lowered in schools, public buildings and businesses. This could well accustom people to reducing air conditioning at home and perhaps inspire them to enjoy the outdoors in summer.

Let us take this a step further. People will give up what they have not experienced much faster than they will abandon what they have become attached to. There was widespread dislike of automobiles until people were forced to buy them by destruction of street cars. In early 2026, there is large-scale rejection of data centres, a big source of carbon dioxide emissions and land destruction.

This manifests Kohei Saito’s phrase “Slow down.” A next step for degrowth could be halting the constant introduction of new gadgets that rarely improve anyone’s life. After all, you do not miss what does not exist.

Don Fitz (fitzdon@aol.com) has taught Environmental Psychology at Washington University and is author of Cuban Health Care: The Ongoing Revolution. He is Outreach Coordinator for the Green Party of St. Louis and on the Editorial Board of Green Social Thought where a version of this article first appeared.