21–30 of 114 posts
What's stopping them? There's tons of empty land in the world. Go find a stream in the forest and live a sustenance-level life. Oh, they want everyone else to be miserable too.
What's stopping them? There's tons of empty land in the world. Go find a stream in the forest and live a sustenance-level life. Oh, they want everyone else to be miserable too.
Perhaps you know this already, but they would be outcompeted very quickly and disappear (like the shakers). It’s like how paying extra taxes voluntarily isn’t a substitute for wanting increased taxation.
"Practically, this would also require an increase in free public services; people won’t have to make as much money if they don’t have to spend on healthcare, housing, education, and transportation. Some degrowthers also call for a universal income to compensate for a shorter work week." How about we just give every person a billion dollars? Then no one would have to work, and they could invest their excess cash in th…
We don't need as many people on earth as we have to sustain ourselves, and the population will naturally right-size over time. Unfortunately there'll be a painful transition period where there's more people than work to do. We can either make work, kill people, or we can pay people to stay home and do... whatever. I'm very much in favor of the latter.
Many people derive their identity, sense of self and satisfaction from what they do. Those people will continue to work. Some will stay home and pursue liberal arts or stay-at-home parenting. All that is fine.
The inescapable future, though, is that medicine, law, manufacturing, farming -- everything we do -- will be automated. This will free us to pursue our passions whatever they may be. In the interim, we've got basic income. To be clear, this still leaves room in society for wealth and income inequality as a motivator -- you can still be fabulously wealthy in a world where the poor are healthy and secure. We're just talking about bumping up the bottom line so the alternative isn't death and suffering.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/Fi...
What's stopping them? There's tons of empty land in the world. Go find a stream in the forest and live a sustenance-level life. Oh, they want everyone else to be miserable too.
That's what Ted Kaczynski tried before he got driven out of his cabin in the woods.
What size ‘should’ the global economy be?
The economic value of a healthy environment is certainly not accounted for, but growth isn't bad. Externalities and tragedy of the commons are. I want the economy to grow. Specifically I want the wind and solar industries to grow REALLY fast. So much so that their lobbying power is greater than that of the oil industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you know this already, but they would be outcompeted very quickly and disappear (like the shakers). It’s like how paying extra taxes voluntarily isn’t a substitute for wanting increased taxation.
The shakers died out because they were celibate.
Nature doesn’t reward restraint, either in that kind of productivity or the other kind of productivity.
For a while, I was pretty sold on anarcho-primitivism as a concept (Derrick Jensen is a prominent figure in that sphere), but it is pretty deluded to think that quality of life would increase and life would be cushy and comfortable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world's population is still growing, economy must grow or there is less of everything for everyone.
Aren't we past the point of having too much? Making plastic single use goods obsolete and reducing all the Amazon purchases that get used once if ever would reduce total output. More focus could be put on quality (I know this can't be defined) products, rather that just driving blind consumerism.
I wonder how it would affect garbage collection bills.
