Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Degrowth

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#91

Post by asabjorn »

dredmorbius wrote: post #32
asabjorn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There also doesn't seem to be wide awareness that the degrowth people are currently intentionally sabotaging farming output. Sri Lankas food crisis is due to a forced stop in artificial fertilizer use and growth of only organic crops, and there are likewise farmer protests in the Netherlands (5th largest food producer), Belgium, Germany etc due to the governments pushing this. Closer to home the "inflation reduction…

Sri Lanka's various crises are not a result of degrowth policies, but because the country simply has no money to pay for imports . Including of fertilisers. The arrow of causality is fiscal collapse -> agricultural collapse. It's possible to look at historical crop yields worldwide, including in advanced / wealthy nations, and see where economic recession or high energy (especially natural gas, the primary feedstock…

One-third of Sri Lanka’s farm lands were dormant in 2021 due to the fertilizer ban. Over 90% of Sri Lanka’s farmers had used chemical fertilizers before they were banned. After they were banned, an astonishing 85% experienced crop losses.

The numbers are shocking. After the fertilizer ban, rice production fell 20% and prices skyrocketed 50 percent in just six months. Sri Lanka had to import $450 million worth of rice despite having been self-sufficient in the grain just months earlier. The price of carrots and tomatoes rose five-fold.

While there are just 2 million farmers in Sri Lanka, 15 million of the country’s 22 million people are directly or indirectly dependent on farming.

This article should give you the context and data points showing you do not have all the information

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/green-dogma-behi...

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#92

Post by asabjorn »

seltzered_ wrote: post #79
asabjorn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There also doesn't seem to be wide awareness that the degrowth people are currently intentionally sabotaging farming output. Sri Lankas food crisis is due to a forced stop in artificial fertilizer use and growth of only organic crops, and there are likewise farmer protests in the Netherlands (5th largest food producer), Belgium, Germany etc due to the governments pushing this. Closer to home the "inflation reduction…

That narrative (affiliating the collapse of Sri Lanka with ESG, Degrowth) has been getting pushed primarily by people on the other side of the planet with their own political biases (libertarians, preppers, bitcoin maximalists, etc.). Yes it was a terrible policy to issue an immediate ban on fertilizers, and don't think organizations/ngos associated with the policy should be absolved, but there also has to be a look…

I agree that there are other issues such as huge loans from China ( belt&road is a economic catastrophe where deployed), tourism drop due to covid and a 2019 bombing etc

That said the ESG actions is clearly correlated in the data with 1/3 of farmland laying dormant in 2021, crop losses and yield issues. Many of us won’t forget Sri Lanka was touted by WEF as a ESG poster child before it went south.

This article links to supporting data

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/green-dogma-behi...

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#93

Post by Ygg2 »

roflyear wrote: post #87
Ygg2 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another poster has noted, that's not a solution, that's just exporting problem to another country. What happens when due to immigration or rising standards the immigration tap runs dry?

It's the only thing that works. Otherwise you have to change how you do everything. Much harder.

Well. Looks like everything will need to change anyway.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#94

Post by satyrnein »

neilwilson wrote: post #81
roflyear wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an obvious way out. Increase immigration. The US does this well. Why doesn't Japan? Because of racism and xenophobia. No one talks about it (wouldn't be surprised if I got downvoted for mentioning it) but Japan is mad racist. They do not like foreigners.

Immigration is just colonial appropriation. It's the solution proposed by city dwellers who think we should live 50 deep in a square mile of massive cities - generally an upper middle class who seem to believe they should have constant access to cheap servants they don't have to personally house and look after. Japan already has massive cities. It doesn't work. We need economics that doesn't assume you can always go…

Accepting immigrants who desperately want to come is nothing like taking resources by force.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#95

Post by zmgsabst »

pessimizer wrote: post #80
zmgsabst wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same sense any rights are “entirely up for discussion”. Is that your point? — that because we had slavery, slavery is “entirely up for discussion”?

No, in a different sense, because the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right. The rights you have were decided upon by people who aren't you, and imposed on you. I'm theoretically sympathetic to your wanting to opt out of public services, but it's too onerous to have to maintain lists of houses not to put out if they're on fire.

> the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right

You just said the right to not be a slave is a made-up right.

> it's too onerous to have to maintain lists of houses not to put out if they're on fire

So don’t? — but you’re losing me at the point you go from “I save money by not tracking exceptions” to “I have the right to make you participate because I want your money”.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#96

Post by brutusborn »

neilwilson wrote: post #81
roflyear wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an obvious way out. Increase immigration. The US does this well. Why doesn't Japan? Because of racism and xenophobia. No one talks about it (wouldn't be surprised if I got downvoted for mentioning it) but Japan is mad racist. They do not like foreigners.

Immigration is just colonial appropriation. It's the solution proposed by city dwellers who think we should live 50 deep in a square mile of massive cities - generally an upper middle class who seem to believe they should have constant access to cheap servants they don't have to personally house and look after. Japan already has massive cities. It doesn't work. We need economics that doesn't assume you can always go…

What would "economics that doesn't assume you can always go around the world taking other nations resources" look like? You seem to be criticizing a current solution to a problem without suggesting an alternative solution.

Edit since I'm getting downvotes: I'll take a stab and hopefully someone will correct me. Do you mean a return to Mercantilism? If we can't have immigration because that is 'taking another nations resources,' then we must end up with some kind of Protectionism or Mercantilism? Or are you proposing a World Government?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#97

Post by zmgsabst »

imtringued wrote: post #61
zmgsabst wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd trade most (though maybe not all) of the great meals I've ever had for the guarantee I'd never go hungry. I wouldn’t — and there’s been times I was quite hungry while homeless. Moreover, your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me.

>Moreover, your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me. You will have to explain how reducing growth dependence reduces agency. If anything, one could argue that there is no such thing as agency with growth dependence.

> You will have to explain how reducing growth dependence reduces agency.

Your process of “reducing growth dependence” is fundamentally you stifling and regimenting growth.

You don’t have a fundamental right to moderate my growth, against my wishes — but I do have a fundamental right to seek growth.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#98

Post by brutusborn »

imtringued wrote: post #59

Ah yes, compound interest, the magic that makes everything grow exponentially. I do not believe the human mind can grasp exponential growth. If compound interest is absolute then 3% interest over 2000 years is equivalent to colonizing every single planet, even the barren ones, in more than 50 trillion milkyways. Even at the speed of light it will take 4 years to get to alpha centauri, you're not getting to the edge o…

Why do we need to colonize other planets?

Most growth comes from inventing new things that induce demand. E.g. computers becoming efficient enough to be in everyone's pocket means _everyone wants one in their pocket._ (and thus GDP line goes up) Thus to continuously grow we need to continuously turn the earth-matter we have available into more and more valuable things. Certainly it's not infinite, but I doubt we need to colonize another planet to keep up current growth rate for many centuries, we just need to prioritize knowledge generation (and thus inventions that increase value) over consumption. This usually only occurs during wartime, when existential threats to nations mean that knowledge generation is essential to survival.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#99

Post by cudgy »

satyrnein wrote: post #94
neilwilson wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigration is just colonial appropriation. It's the solution proposed by city dwellers who think we should live 50 deep in a square mile of massive cities - generally an upper middle class who seem to believe they should have constant access to cheap servants they don't have to personally house and look after. Japan already has massive cities. It doesn't work. We need economics that doesn't assume you can always go…

Accepting immigrants who desperately want to come is nothing like taking resources by force.

True, but the parent post did not mention use of force.

We cannot deny that there is a brain drain in many third world countries that desperately need well trained workers that is accelerated by acceptance of immigrants into developed nations like the US. Who’s going to lead these countries into better governance and economic improvement if all the talent is incentivized to leave their home countries for greener pastures?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#100

Post by cudgy »

juve1996 wrote: post #66
nickff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem to be willing to trade some level of security for some level of luxury. This is why people take out the largest mortgage they possibly can given their income, and spend money they don't have on cars (which they will take a long time to pay off). These revealed preferences are hard to deny, and it would be quite presumptuous to impose a different trade-off on a plurality/majority of the populace.

What choice do people have? It doesn't make sense to trade anything for security because that security is non-existent anyway. Losing your job & health benefits for much of the middle class would be a death sentence regardless if they bought a 35k car or a 10k beater.

25k saved (the difference in price between the cars) is more than most people have in savings. It would at least delay the fall of the guillotine long enough to find another job.
Post reply on HN