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

241–250 of 332 posts

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#241

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

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.

It's not just density of energy. In a world of (close to) 100% renewable energy, what will the cost of electricity be relative to today? Framed another way; what's the cost of energy for someone who is "off the grid" today? Someone who is "off the grid" energy wise but connected digitally could have an uncapped impact on economic growth while having a hard cap on their impact on the environment/energy.

Society can combine renewable energy (which have a low per-unit cost) with dense fuel based energies like nuclear to drive the cost of energy towards 0., enabling new kinds of economic growth. For example, Proof of Work style crypto is something that's criticized = today for environmental reasons which, in that future world, would just be a siphon for excess energy. Replace crypto with "Folding@Home" style applications if you want.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#242

Post by anm89 »

eCa wrote: post #13
anm89 wrote: post #5

We are in the biggest global/sovereign debt crisis of the last 100 year, maybe more. The things that will cause an explosive collapse in this scenario is shrinking population and a global shrinking economy. Debt needs growth. It's like a mortgage on a house. It's a good deal if the house is increasing in value. It can quickly turn bad if the house is losing value. Personally, I'd prefer to see that collapse happen bu…

Can you dive a bit deeper into why you would like to see our global civilization collapse? (I mean, if it doesn’t it’s not for lack of us trying. I just don’t see it as something to look forward to.)

Our current system is wrecking the environment. That seems like a good enough reason for me.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#243

Post by im_dario »

WalterBright wrote: post #123
pessimizer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conditions of the middle-class are actually too luxurious. Everybody in the world can't have a suburban lawn. What the middle-class (and the poor) don't have is security . They live in a state of fear that the entire bottom will drop out of their lives if they get fired, or have a heart attack, or any of a million things. Supplying security to people is actually cheaper that what we do now, just as socialized hea…

Free market health care is far cheaper than socialized health care.

Some studies suggest that a single-payer system (thus socialized) is more cost-effective than the current free market in the USA: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo....

Also, social benefits like protection against medical bankruptcy, universal coverage, and others are known to have a net positive impact.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#244

Post by trashtester »

zmgsabst wrote: post #44
pessimizer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me. That's entirely up for discussion. Civilization has imposed a lot of choices on you that you may not like.

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”?

> Is that your point? — that because we had slavery, slavery is “entirely up for discussion”?

That discussion has been settled in the West, at least for now. In many places, the discussion is still ongoing, and in fact, they are an estimated 40 million slaves (or similarly bonded people) on Earth today, or about 10x as many as in the US South in 1860.

I find it a bit funny that in an increasingly atheistic society, some Christian values are held even more axiomatically than ever before, and racism is particular

Statues of American founders get torn down due to some link to it. Imagine if everything around the world with some link to forced labor would be given the same treatment. We would have to remove almost every ancient monument or statue from Italy, Greece, Egypt, the Middle East, India, China, former Aztec and Inka peoples, just to mention a few.

Also most ancient works of writing, from all over the globe would have to be given introduction with warning that the author may have owned slaves or benefitted from slave labor.

I'm not American. I did not grow up with the legacy of American slavery. By no means do I endorse slavery, but when reading about Aristotle's ideas about slavery, I'm able to imagine a world where slavery is seen as normal. In many cases, those who lost some war would end up as slaves. But typically, that would go both ways. Whichever side won would enslave the other.

I have trouble seeing almost every inhabitant of classical Europe, the Middle East or North Africa as evil just because they either did own slaves, or would have owned slaves had they been able to.

Just like I have trouble seeing a Lion or Hyena as evil for eating a Zebra. (Ok, maybe I can see the Hyena as evil, mainly because they're ugly ;)

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#245

Post by trashtester »

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.

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

I agree with this statement. Actually, I consider this more of a principle than a right. Society should aim to minimize the degree to which it imposes the will of the government on the citizens, not fundamentally because freedom is an a priori right, but because it leads to a more peaceful society.

A society where the citizens do not tolerate would be tyrants that want to excessively dictate how people live, tends to be (EDIT) more stable, innovative or economically competitive over time.

Citizens of a freedom-loving society may not all understand this from first principles. Even if most believe they have such a right somewhat dogmatically, it may still have the same outcome.

Dogmatism may come with the downside of seeing people with different opinions as evil, though, and may sometimes lead to needless conflict.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#246

Post by bobthechef »

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#247

Post by whatarethembits »

nicbou wrote: post #160
legolas2412 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> including the people they have schooled and trained to provide for their own population. Oh, I didn't realize I was a slave to a country. And the act of immigration which I willfully do, and the host country is pretty much hostile about, is "stealing" me. If Western countries wanted to steal me, they should not have put up such roadblocks to immigration

That’s just arguing in bad faith. No one is denying that it’s your right to move around. It doesn’t make it any less of a bad deal for your home country. They invested in you and you left. Do this a few million times and you feel the effect. No one is blaming you. The person above just pointed out that immigration isn’t a free lunch.

They (birth country) didn’t invest in shit. It’s run by right wing extremists who at one point were less than 100m away ready to burn down our house and family alive. I’ll happily clean toilets in a different country than to go back to my “home” country. Its very difficult to wrap up your whole family and move to another country speaking a different language, betting your entire life savings in the process. But often the social climate and the people who adhere to those norms are so bad that any amount of effort to get away from it is acceptable.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#248

Post by trashtester »

hgomersall wrote: post #131
kmeisthax wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the leech analogy is that we can't actually tell what part of society is "the leech". Society and economics can be best described not as a human with a leech on it, but a writhing mass of leeches all sucking each others' blood. In other words, mutual parasitism. What parts of the economy can be "gotten rid of" - as in, the people who run them being socially marginalized or worse - depends solely on w…

The distinction between parasites and symbiotes needs to be made here. Too many in society are parasites, despite portraying the impression they are symbiotes. I'd posit entire industries fall into that category.

Every living organism that doesn't have photosynthesis may be seen in some way as a parasite.

Every individual live in something like an ecosystem. I would argue that society is part of the ecosystem for humans.

Whether or not (or in what cases) one individual should be forced to give up resources to another will be a never-ending discussion. Should government money be used for development aid abroad? For social welfare domestically? Are you responsible for caring for your parents? Your sibling? Your children? Is a mother responsible for providing her biological resources to an unborn child?

We may never come to permanent, full agreement on most of these questions.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#249

Post by asabjorn »

juve1996 wrote: post #74
josephcsible wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The problem is that all of us who already know "degrowth" is bad are going to have to suffer through the result along with them.

De-growth policies have absolutely no chance in our day and age. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

You’ve already lived through artificial gas shortages since February 2021 after fracking and gas pipelines were shut down, so that’s demonstrably incorrect. Less easy to spot you’ve seen policy of not building new refineries and oil fields.

Likewise you can see degrowth in food supply pushed by governments in Sri Lanka, Netherlands, Belgium and Germany etc. in the US the “inflation reduction bill” spends 20 billion to put farmland out of use and put regulation in place to make the remainder farmers farming harder like in Sri Lanka.

Re: The Case for Degrowth

#250

Post by zmgsabst »

pessimizer wrote: post #115
zmgsabst wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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”.

If you consider obeying the law equivalent to slavery, then I absolutely am saying that. The law is other people's choices imposed upon you.

Sure — as is slavery.

Which is my point: you’re not differentiating between the two, while asserting that you don’t have the same rights in one case.

Slavery was also the law.

Post reply on HN