
The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy - azemda
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bj9yjq/the-radical-plan-to-save-the-planet-by-working-less
======
rebuilder
You 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.

~~~
01100011
> 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, but assuming it is true I think we've
come a long way in changing that and the future looks even better.

~~~
hannob
> 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.

~~~
fvdessen
Carbon emissions are decreasing in Europe despite economic growth. Nature is
getting in better shape as well.

~~~
hnhg
Can you explain how nature is getting in better shape? Everything I have read
contradicts your statement.

~~~
Mirioron
There's more forest in Europe now than a hundred years ago.

------
jefflombardjr
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.

~~~
Sabinus
>So much so that their lobbying power is greater than that of the oil
industry. I've noticed a bit of this from the anti-renewables crowd. They
accuse green energy proponents of just wanting to increase the value of their
investments. Somehow they ignore the huge investment in fossil fuels though.

------
derrick_jensen
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.

~~~
lm28469
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.

~~~
aaomidi
Maybe not working 40 hours a week and enjoying the world in our prime age?

We spend our best time of the day stuck in an office or someone else's
property doing work for them. Losing all the time we have with sunlight.

If we all worked 20 hours a week and maintained our SoL we would even be
mentally more stable.

~~~
Mirioron
And then the people whose SoL is terrible right now would outcompete you and
your SoL will fall, because they're the better candidate for the job. There
are a lot of people whose standard of living is low right now.

~~~
aaomidi
Maybe we shouldn't tie SoL to "work output"

------
mushufasa
An author once came and spoke to my environmental studies class. Of the Club
of Rome, he said "Fascinating ideas. They might be right. But try getting
elected by promising a shrinking economy."

Yeah, not gonna happen. Best to treat growth as a given and work around it,
imho.

~~~
markdown
> "Fascinating ideas. They might be right. But try getting elected by
> promising a shrinking economy."

It sounds like the problem is democracy. What we need is a BDFL.

~~~
stickfigure
The world only offers DFLs.

------
m3nu
Would be great, but human nature is to want more stuff, money and power.

On the upside, many "new" sectors don't use natural resources, except human
time. E.g. writing blog posts, social media management, doing marketing
campaigns for Gucci. Growth in those sectors should be (mostly) easy on the
planet.

~~~
dcolkitt
> Would be great, but human nature is to want more stuff, money and power.

A lot of HN lives in an upper-middle class first world bubble. Median global
income is $2900 per year. That's less than $10 a day.

For the vast majority of the world, economic growth isn't about "stuff, money
and power". It's about escaping abject poverty. It's about reliable access to
running water, electricity, shelter, and food.

~~~
BlueTemplar
Source? Last time I've checked global median income was closer to $365/year...

EDIT : Never mind, I must have confused it with the poverty line, and an old
one to boot !

EDIT2 : Note though, that the costs of living, and especially of housing, are
going to be _wildly_ different depending on your location !

------
barry-cotter
This 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.

~~~
rebuilder
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.

~~~
jryan49
The world's population is still growing, economy must grow or there is less of
everything for everyone.

~~~
gibolt
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.

~~~
csdreamer7
Banning single use plastic is not a bad idea. That's pretty easy to enforce
against the chain stores.

I wonder how it would affect garbage collection bills.

------
BlueTemplar
> Families would perhaps have one car instead of three

That's cute. No, most families would own NO cars, like most families don't own
an helicopter these days.

P.S.: I'm pretty sure that's already/still true today, if you consider the
world rather than the richest countries.

P.P.S: And I'm pretty sure that it's only in USA that the idea of most
families having three cars wouldn't be considered outrageous.

------
Barrin92
I'm pretty far on the left and used to be active in communist politics (little
bit less exceptional here in Europe than across the pond), but I've always
been very irritated by these degrowth movements, although a lot of this stuff
came out of 'my' political tent.

It's to me reminiscent of the 'deep ecology' folks, who don't pursue
environmentalism with the goal of furthering human well-being, but have a
quasi religious attitude to nature as if it is a thing in itself. If you want
to have a life of leisure and cooperation, you need material progress and
abstract away all the nasty and brutish things which is only achievable in an
environment of abundance.

Degrowth will produce the exact opposite. Scarcity, tribalism, zero-sum
competition and so on.

~~~
BlueTemplar
Degrowth has never been in the same "political tent" as "communism" (by which
I assume you mean Marx/Engels-based socialism?)

The idea that human well-being is central, while nature is just a resource
used to achieve abundance is completely opposite to the philosophy of the
degrowth movement.

~~~
nathanaldensr
Then almost by definition the movement prioritizes an anthropomorphized planet
over people. The movement, in effect, advocates for killing people.

~~~
BlueTemplar
That's like equating people critical of Israel with those in favor of
reopening Auschwitz.

------
hyko
What size ‘should’ the global economy be?

~~~
smadge
The size that ensures every person a comfortable lifestyle while maintaining a
healthy and sustainable biosphere.

~~~
BrandonM
Is the human species every really comfortable?

~~~
tonyedgecombe
“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room
alone.”

Blaine Pascal

------
sametmax
I'm amazed it's such a sensitive topic. Some people are litterally angry in
the comments out people suggesting degrowth.

Since we have math lovers here, I'll post a fantastic math oriented conf on
the topic:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_othe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_other&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D)

------
chewz
It is elites a way of saying that most working class is becoming disposable
for the elites. Why let them idle? Better just dispose them for good.

------
londons_explore
Or you expand the pool of natural resources...

Hello Mars!

------
ralph84
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.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
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.

~~~
rblatz
The shakers died out because they were celibate.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Yep. What do you think degrowth will lead to if it’s done in the context of
growth?

Nature doesn’t reward restraint, either in that kind of productivity or the
other kind of productivity.

~~~
makapuf
Wait a few decades and see if it exuberant growth ... What I think is that we
might price natural resources much more expensively. Higher Price and thus
growth is not always synonymous with more resources. It is an approximation
but better means higher price not more resources.

------
devmunchies
>Degrowth is now a buzz word in left-leaning and academic circles around the
world

Ted Kaczynski and other far-right thinkers (e.g. Pentti Linkola) have been
advocating for shrinking the economy for decades.

It’s not a left/right issue and one side doesn’t have a monopoly on anti-
materialism.

~~~
dTal
I'm not sure how you characterize Kaczynski as far-right. He was an anarchist.

~~~
devmunchies
He criticized the anarchi-primitive view heavily. He was mostly just against
technological advancement.

But I wouldn’t classify anarchism as left-wing either.

------
anon12009
I apologize for the wall of text. I hope someone finds it interesting.

I think people in the West assume that because we are freer than most that we
are not drowning in propaganda. Money really does run the show this planet
over. Money and power really do seem to bring the worst out of people.

Economic growth is only needed for Ponzi economics, whether that be retirement
funds, Social Security or stock market returns. Human beings are not some
living aberration that _requires_ growth or we die. Growth is only "needed" by
the financial industry and holders of equities. As growing social unrest
increases, and it will, people will slowly realize that consumption of cheap
Chinese electronics do not make them happy. This idea that once we get over
the hurdle of 100% automation we will all be able to live work and stress free
in our post automation utopia where people can focus on the things that give
them "meaning" and make them "happy" is absurd. Basic Income as a panacea for
the lower class is another ridiculous idea that can only be imagined being
successful if you first image human beings as blank slates whose programing is
purely cultural and devoid of millions of years of instinctual hardwiring. The
only thing I see Basic Income providing is as cultural grease (as in bribe) to
keep people from rioting. The "need" for immigration is another epic lie
needed only to keep the Ponzi scheme going. It blows my mind that the left let
this made-in-marketing-heaven line of propaganda slide: "immigration is needed
to supply the jobs that Americans don't want to do". It even sounds like a
corporate slogan. Holy shit the gas-lighting. This is wage suppression.
Americans don't want to do those jobs _for what you want to pay them_ when you
can instead take advantage of someone from a poor and broken country. This was
big business stealing from Americans and it has contributed to the decline of
the middle class. People seem to forget, or maybe they don't know, that the
middle class was _created_ through policy, just as it is now being dismantled
through policy. Instead of this issue being talked about honestly we are told
to ridicule those "xenophobes" who dare suggest that Americans could/should be
doing those jobs for a non artificially lowered wage. Off-shoring and
immigration are the same thing and no one is honest about this. They are
supported by the same forces, for the same Ponzi effect, for the same
concentration of wealth causing the growing income disparity we see. The
"need" for immigration is also about the higher abstraction of the population
Ponzi scheme. We as human being do not _need_ to grow to thrive. There is no
need to see just how many billions of us this planet and technology can
sustain before biblical levels of suffering ensue. Europe importing millions
of "refugees" (migrants)/immigrants to "fill the void" is purely the greed and
entitlement of the Elites. They feel entitled to Ponzi economic comforts even
though they did have to children themselves to support it. Less people means
less load on the environment and less fighting over resources. This is a great
thing especially for the environment as well as for everyone else on the
planet not just those in Europe. Jared Diamond in his book Upheaval very slyly
points out that immigration from the third world into the first world
increases environmental problems by increasing gross carbon emissions and
overconsumption. Yet as much as Diamond is loved by the left this is ignored,
as if he didn't say it. Again the propaganda pumped out is multiculturalism
and "diversity is our strength". Japan and the Norwegian countries beg to
differ and are looked up to as models. Immigration is pushed to keep the Ponzi
scheme going and to increase the Democrat voting base and not to give you more
choices in local cuisine. The bullshit is miles high.

Can you really not envision a thriving human race without growth?
International finance and corporate banking really do _need_ growth. Either
way economic growth is not sustainable indefinitely. Technology will not
enable us to colonize the Universe anytime soon. Self driving cars are not
happening in the next decade and the singularity is not happening in the next
5 decades, at least.

Looking through the comments I see multiple posts suggesting that non growth
equals lowered standard of living. Standard of living has all ready started
falling in America, most likely due to income disparity. Japan has not had
much economic growth for the last 20 years yet they are living in the future.
I have visited Japan, it's incredible. Japan feels like a future I'm not sure
a multicultural country like American can ever achieve. Regardless, Ponzi
economics is not necessary for anything other than easy money, especially for
the Elites. Someone down at the bottom mentions Ted Kaczynski as a "far-right
[thinker]". I think not. If you remove his savage deconstruction of leftism
and academia from his writings he would be considered far left-wing. His
philosophy is left-wing environmentalism and anti capitalism/tehcnology.

------
Mirioron
> _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._

So, this movement is communism by another name? I understand that the new bit
is the reduction energy consumption and quality of life, but it seems to me
that they first need to get to the communist stage and then they'll shrink the
economy. In other words: it's a fantasy.

~~~
Fins
Once they get to doing communism, both the economy and the population will
shrink automatically.

