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

221–230 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#221

Post by mcjiggerlog »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #215
mcjiggerlog wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Increased energy usage is not necessarily necessary for increased economic growth I disagree with this - economic growth has almost always perfectly aligned with increased energy use, however this is not a bad thing. The history of the human race has been about moving from less dense sources of energy to higher dense ones. From wood, to charcoal, to coal, to oil, to gas, to nuclear fission, to nuclear fusion. Abund…

> The good news is that what we have started to decouple our impact on the environment and economic growth. I fail to see how this is true in any meaningful sense.

Here's a good explanation and source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#222

Post by Gatsky »

RandomLensman wrote: post #106

So why now? Would it have been better to stop growing in Roman or medial times, for example? Or stop only in a 100 years? Degrowth seems to me like a vision of the future that assumes that humans should remain slaves of their environment and not become masters of it. If humans are to become the dominant species in the universe, degrowth will not help.

I think part of the answer could be that the global population is older and wealthier than it ever has been. This has certain effects on our collective psychology.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#223

Post by actually_a_dog »

scythe wrote: post #82

> by slowly and reluctantly altering the traditional society, like the Chinese?’ No need to have some kind of "cultural revolution"? >Endless growth – green or not These arguments are all the same. They take the current rate of growth, plug in a time period longer than has elapsed since the death of vitalism as a theory of life (an idea which, today, is laughable to consider), and conclude that we need to stop growin…

Here's your answer: because if we continue on our current trajectory, in a mere 30-50 years, we will be experiencing significant effects of societal collapse due to climate change that make the current societal effects of ecological collapse we're experiencing (breakdown of supply chains, erosion of institutions, loss of biodiversity, record high global temperatures, etc.) seem like "the good old days." I'm talking "kids born today will die in a world that resembles Mad Max" kind of effects. We don't have 500 years to do something about that. We have to do it now.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#224

Post by Gatsky »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #191
RandomLensman wrote: post #106

So why now? Would it have been better to stop growing in Roman or medial times, for example? Or stop only in a 100 years? Degrowth seems to me like a vision of the future that assumes that humans should remain slaves of their environment and not become masters of it. If humans are to become the dominant species in the universe, degrowth will not help.

Direct thermal forcing is at about 100mW/m^2. This gives us about a century to stop increasing energy usage and albedo. This is precisely where we were when people first started raising alarm bells about greenhouse gases. The thermal emissivity of the night side of earth is only one of many limits we are running head first into. Almost all scarce resources, many abundant ones, and even abstract concepts like the grow…

Can you explain what thermal forcing is in this context?

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#225

Post by RandomLensman »

Gatsky wrote: post #222
RandomLensman wrote: post #106

So why now? Would it have been better to stop growing in Roman or medial times, for example? Or stop only in a 100 years? Degrowth seems to me like a vision of the future that assumes that humans should remain slaves of their environment and not become masters of it. If humans are to become the dominant species in the universe, degrowth will not help.

I think part of the answer could be that the global population is older and wealthier than it ever has been. This has certain effects on our collective psychology.

Interesting angle - higher risk aversion as a driver.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#226

Post by goodpoint »

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.

You are confusing two things. Accepting immigrants is the humane thing to do.

Perpetuating economic inequality across the world is not.

Millions have to choose between working for meager salaries in one place or move to be exploited elsewhere. They are getting the short stick both ways.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#227

Post by bongoman37 »

nicbou wrote: post #159
brutusborn wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is no obligation to supply an alternative solution. Engineering taught me to define a problem without thinking of a solution, because it restricts your thinking. That the person above didn’t bring a solution does not invalidate their statement. Immigration is only a solution for those getting the immigrants. It’s not so nice for the countries that raise and educate them without any ROI.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#228

Post by kaashif »

patrick451 wrote: post #144
elgenie wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan’s GDP per capita is similar to what it was in the mid-90s despite sizable per-worker productivity gains because their population is aging rapidly. However, “no obvious way out” is incorrect. Increasing immigration (with citizenship) and supporting women having long term careers (as opposed to jobs-until-kids) are both quite obvious; they just involve societal changes that are, for now, unpalatable.

What you're describing is a ponzi scheme.

The phrase "Ponzi scheme" is misused so much it has become meaningless.

A Ponzi scheme is a very specific type of fraud. Ever-increasing immigration to sustain a >1 worker-to-retiree ratio is more like a pyramid scheme, but one that will take decades or maybe a century to really stop working.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#229

Post by Schroedingersat »

RandomLensman wrote: post #197
Schroedingersat wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct thermal forcing is at about 100mW/m^2. This gives us about a century to stop increasing energy usage and albedo. This is precisely where we were when people first started raising alarm bells about greenhouse gases. The thermal emissivity of the night side of earth is only one of many limits we are running head first into. Almost all scarce resources, many abundant ones, and even abstract concepts like the grow…

Once we build and make stuff truly not on earth it will decouple. The trade never reaches earth then, so overall human economy expands but not earth's (or only a little, ie high value trade, maybe even take some high waste energy processes off earth if energy from dropping product back is less). The human economy could be much larger but not all parts of the human sphere would necessarily trade with each other materi…

So then earth still has to degrow even for the short duration before the carrying capacity of the solar system gets exhausted. The presence or absence of a growing economy elsewhere is irrelevant.

You ask why now? The answer is because we've already overshot the ability to do everything we do sustainably with the resources available. We need to get off the treadmill now and hope like hell technology and the available buffers are enough to limit the harm to 'merely' hundreds of millions dying.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#230

Post by Schroedingersat »

Gatsky wrote: post #224
Schroedingersat wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct thermal forcing is at about 100mW/m^2. This gives us about a century to stop increasing energy usage and albedo. This is precisely where we were when people first started raising alarm bells about greenhouse gases. The thermal emissivity of the night side of earth is only one of many limits we are running head first into. Almost all scarce resources, many abundant ones, and even abstract concepts like the grow…

Can you explain what thermal forcing is in this context?

The raw heat output of humanity divided by area of earth.

GHG is bad because it produces single digit watts of forcing (captured solar heat that would otherwise escape).

Direct thermal forcing from either capturing sunlight (making the surface darker) or emitting heat from nuclear derived (or in short term, fossil fuels before they run out) sources is just as catastrophic, but further off.

We can happily replace our current energy needs with nuclear and renewable, but we're just back at square one if we don't end growth.

Post reply on HN