It's not that radical, we lived with less than this for tens of thousands of years before the industrial revolution.
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
772 points (97.9% liked)
Simple Living
2512 readers
1 users here now
Live better, with less
Ideas and inspiration for living more simply. A place to share tips on living with less stuff, work, speed, or stress in return for gaining more freedom, time, self-reliance, and joy.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This sounds nice for someone in a developed country who has all they need, and is only satisfying their wants. But for most of the world, economic development is a necessity and a lifesaver. Child mortality is reduced, life expectancy and education level increased, child labor decreased, as a country's economy grows. This is not a fringe right-wing idea. This is the very real effect of economic growth in developing countries, i.e. most of the world.
Degrowthers often seem to forget that applying their ideas will literally kill millions in developing countries, by preventing the economic developments that would have saved them.
FWIW, I am not a fan of unbridled capitalism either but think that it is important to consider science in important matters like this and not just go with gut feeling. That applies to both fascism and degrowth.
I think a more fair take is that we need growth in underdeveloped places and degrowth in highly developed places. It's less about changing the total economic output and more about changing how that output is distributed.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Degrowth addresses that, contrary to your opinion. Degrowth in the global north provides the space for the global south to properly develop, something that has been systematically denied to them in many places by western powers through unequal exchange and neocolonialism.
load more comments
(8 replies)
It seems like the choice is to die from the environmental issues or die from poor health care? There is no way anyone survives with the current state of things.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The article is, in my opinion, purposely mischaracterizing the degrowth movement. I would say degrowth is more a natural reaction to the excesses of capitalism than movement about addressing climate change.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How about we do two things
Like how about we work less and we immediately and totally nationalize energy and agriculture haha just a thought haha (fireflies are going extinct haha)
Way ahead of you, energy has already been nationalized here for a long time.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
This will go the same way the "Green New Deal" did. It will scare the ruling class, the ruling class will send its media minions to demonize it, and nothing will change. 
no actually, you forgot the final step of "loudly and blindly double down"
You mean like destroying new light bulbs and rolling coal to trigger the wokes? 
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Protip: if you want your movement to gain any political traction, don't call it the degrowth movement
What would you call it? Its kinda like the "defund police" thing. If they called it "reallocate police resources" opposition to the movement would just use the stronger "defund police" language as a cudgel to smear it. It's best to own it and educate
load more comments
(4 replies)
Pro tip: any one telling you the problem with your movement is the optics, doesn't actually care about the objectives of thst movement
load more comments
(5 replies)
Defund Wall St.
load more comments
(1 replies)
In order to slow the economy down and not wreak havoc, he said, we have to reconfigure our ideas about the entire economic system.
This is how degrowthers envision the process: After a reduction in material and energy consumption, which will constrict the economy, there should also be a redistribution of existing wealth, and a transition from a materialistic society to one in which the values are based on simpler lifestyles and unpaid work and activities.
Sounds good to me. It is a fair point that the basic operation of our society depends on continual growth, but redistribution seems like it would be an effective way of mitigating those problems degrowth might cause. We have more than enough resources to keep everyone alive, we just have to use them.
I'd rather just do the full communism now path, where once every man, woman and child has all their needs and many of their wants met, there isn't a desire to chase the next fashion craze, or buy the next iphone or "keep up with the jones'" as it were because the Jones' have the same stuff you do, but maybe they spend their ample leisure time exercising, you spend your time gardening.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Degrowth is such a fucking stupid idea. What we need is socialism. The demonic oligarchs that run the world are never going to prioritize reducing climate change. They've made that clear over the last century. There's too much profit to be made.
Worker owned means of production is the only solution. Only then can we direct the productive forces toward solving the most immediate problems that humanity faces. We've created so much productivity, but we need to guide it in the direction of sustainability instead of the profit motive.
You're conflating two very different things. You can have an equitable system of worker owned coops that still has a growth mindset and destroys the ecosystem. You don't magically become sustainable when socialism becomes a thing. Growth itself when we're bound by the resources of a single planet a problem, period.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
"Turn on, tune in, drop out" 2.0
Yes, we'll save ourselves by resetting the clock and never undoing the conditions that led to where we are
view more: next ›