Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

musicofspheres1 t1_ira3u78 wrote

Time for degrowth

1

CarboniferousTen t1_ira57ws wrote

Environmental advocates have pushed for degrowth since the 70s and its both a terrible political message, and unsuccessful in achieving our climate and security goals. We need to further densify our cities and invest massively in/remove existing barriers to zero/low carbon energy sources (renewables/nuclear/geothermal), public transit, and multi family housing.

5

musicofspheres1 t1_irabsx6 wrote

Of course degrowth doesn’t work, the monetary market system is based on infinite cyclical consumption, which is why it must be phased out for a decentralized access based system, also known as a resource based economy. Trillions of stranded fossil fuel assets if we switch to renewables so that will never happen in the current state. Based on Ethiopias largest model corbetti, 460 geothermal plants could power the US. Earth overshoot day is a real thing. We must switch from Geopolitics to biosphere consciousness

1

CarboniferousTen t1_iradt8n wrote

Regardless of whether this system you propose is feasible or not, the probability of it coming to fruition is literally zero. Meanwhile, there’s clear empirical evidence that growth can be decoupled from emissions, and it’s the direction that the public and policymakers support.

0

Twombls t1_irazs0w wrote

Isn't degrowth effectively just genocide in the name of environmentalism?

5

headgasketidiot t1_irb28na wrote

No, I think you're thinking of the more reactionary Malthusian population control stuff that's like eugenics's cursed cousin. Degrowth is a collection of frameworks and ideas that critique the economy's (destructive and unsustainable) need for infinite growth in order to function. It's less genocidal and more influenced by anti-capitalism, anti-colonialism, feminism, anarchism, etc.

2

Twombls t1_irb2fbm wrote

Oh yes I was thinking of population degrowth.

2

headgasketidiot t1_irb4wxf wrote

My own opinion: I think degrowth scholarship is really important. We need to question these fundamental assumptions about our world. For example, we take it for granted that GDP is the most important measure of an economy, but is it really?

Just talking about potentially big paradigm shifts is so important because otherwise our imaginations become stunted by the times we live in. You can see in this very thread how even people who recognize that we're destroying the only habitable planet just can't imagine a world that different from how it is right now. People using words like "realistic" and "feasible" without really examining the assumptions that go into that. We spent $300 million per day for 20 years in Afghanistan alone, but moving off fossil fuels somehow isn't realistic.

It reminds me of all those philosophers during the enlightenment who pushed for liberalism, rule of law, and a constitution, but at the same time mocked those who thought they could actually get rid of the monarchy or abolish slavery for being unrealistic.

2

musicofspheres1 t1_irb1uxk wrote

No that’s the market system’s prerogative with the ‘green growth decoupling’ myths. Justifies itself by the recognition of scarcity yet due to its structural mechanics promotes and rewards infinite cyclical consumption lol. A steady state ‘sustainable’ society would destabilize nations in the market economy. We saw during the shutdowns how the earth started to heal just by us doing less. Earth overshoot day is a thing. Infinite growth, no regard for biosphere replenishment

1