Or you expand the pool of natural resources...
Hello Mars!
The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
51–60 of 114 posts
Re: The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
#52For 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.
The question is: if we do nothing and just keep destroying the planet, would it be worse? Or better?
> keep destroying the planet,
We couldn't even scratch the planet with an all-out nuclear war, why do people always resort to such ridiculous hyperbole? The planet will be fine, we just might destroy our species (very unlikely with pollution etc.).
Re: The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
#53They should set an example. Like, go live in a cave. Or at least share bunks in a tiny apartment. Otherwise, the "movement" is just a bunch of hypocrites who are all about having _other_ people to make sacrifices so they could get more to themselves.
This is what people believing in degrowth do,
e.g. a lot of people who relate to this movement moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateau_de_Millevaches in France.
Re: The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
#54For 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.
What improvements in quality of life do we really _need_ though?
In first world countries we're so comfy and everything is so convenient that the leading causes of death are due to eating too much and not moving enough. That's pretty ironic if you ask me.
We don't have to go back to living in caves and eating raw animals of course. But I don't see how slowing down would decrease our quality of life.
There is no limit in artificial quality of life improvement. You can spend 1 month of your salary on a bread toaster or on a few iot light bulbs... Or you can send it to a private pension and retire x months earlier than the legal age.
Re: The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
#55Why not commit suicide then? Serious question I'm wondering what their rationalization is.
Even though this is the most misanthropic comment I've ever seen on HN and I'm appalled you would consider writing it, I'll play along! Killing the only people advocating for their movement would make the movement very unlikely to succeed.
Eh, I agree with the OP. Suicide is the only rational choice for the dyed in the wool environmentalist.
Re: The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, the specifics are certainly open to ridicule. But I don't think you can dismiss the idea that we need to find a way to live without economic growth. I think we still have room for some growth, but not for long. If we keep to the status quo, waste heat from energy production alone will grow to disastrous levels within a few centuries.
The universe, heck even the solar system, is pretty big...
At e.g. 2.3% yearly growth in energy usage, humanity would use the sun's entire output in roughly 1400 years time and the entire galaxy's energy output in about 2400 years.[1]
I'm all for space exploration and colonization, but I'm sceptical it can solve the growth problem. I mean, what happens on Earth?
Edit: 1: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
Re: The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
#57This idea is a kind of calamity. They’re proposing to increase poverty worldwide when we haven’t even managed to get everybody over $2 a day of consumption, or bring child mortality down to rates that would have been acceptable in the US in 1950.
No they aren’t.
By the way child mortality in the US is the worst in the OECD despite its wealth.
Re: The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
#58You can ridicule the specifics, but the high-level idea here is spot on. Either you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources, or you have to find a way to have a stable society without economic growth. I see no reason to think the former is possible, so that leaves the latter. The alternative is some kind of calamity.
> you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less. If it keeps up, and we slowdown procreation, I see no reason why it won't drive resource usage down long term. I mean, I completely disagree with the premise that we must consume non-renewable resources to generate wealth, b…
You can only increase efficiency so far. I do agree that a reduction in population would result in lower resource usage, but that's an economic slowdown, i.e. the opposite of growth.
Re: The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
#59You can ridicule the specifics, but the high-level idea here is spot on. Either you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources, or you have to find a way to have a stable society without economic growth. I see no reason to think the former is possible, so that leaves the latter. The alternative is some kind of calamity.
> you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less. If it keeps up, and we slowdown procreation, I see no reason why it won't drive resource usage down long term. I mean, I completely disagree with the premise that we must consume non-renewable resources to generate wealth, b…
> Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less
Actually no, we haven't and we don't. Carbon emissions are still growing.
Classic mistake: You're confusing relative and absolute reductions. We have reduced relative ecological impact a lot, but overall impact has been growing along the way.
Re: The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except aren't a lot the jobs you described usually trying to sell products that aren't necessarily good for the planet?
Exactly this. Without stuff to sell, those "industries" wouldn't really exist. If your blog relies on ad revenue and you have nothing to advertise you're not making money. Gucci doesn't need to advertise if there's no competition to Gucci.
On the other hand nobody is going to die because society decided it no longer needed Gucci. There is a strong argument we would be better off without them.