[Newfie]

Degrowth has come up frequently on PO but I don’t think it’s ever had it’s own thread. So, here ya go.

First a definition from Wiki followed by a link to topical links here on PO.

It strikes me that a lot of the degrowth thinking is inline with prepper and bottle neck thinking. My very brief revie leads me to think that it is an idea that exists mainly in some esoteric and scholarly venues. I don’t think it is having much true social impact at the moment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

Degrowth (French: décroissance) is a political, economic, and social movement based on ecological economics, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideas.[1] It is also considered an essential economic strategy responding to the limits-to-growth dilemma (see The Path to Degrowth in Overdeveloped Countries and post-growth). Degrowth thinkers and activists advocate for the downscaling of production and consumption – the contraction of economies – arguing that overconsumption lies at the root of long term environmental issues and social inequalities. Key to the concept of degrowth is that reducing consumption does not require individual martyring or a decrease in well-being.[2] Rather, "degrowthers" aim to maximize happiness and well-being through non-consumptive means—sharing work, consuming less, while devoting more time to art, music, family, nature, culture and community

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-p ... 3j489123j8

And a summary article.

https://www.greattransition.org/publica ... lternative

[dolanbaker]

Considering the fact that "perpetual growth" is non-negotiational as far as politicians and business leaders are concerned, such a movement will have extreme dificulty gaining traction.

They even go as far as importing people into European countries to ensure that growth continues, just to indicate just how difficult it will be to achieve.

[Cog]

A certain degree of hierarchy is unavoidable because the redistribution of burdens and resources among more and less privileged localities will require intermediation and decision-making at broad geographic levels. Some of the degrowth reforms discussed above are, in fact, quite interventionist and would require strong state action.

Lets let the state decide on what is fair and unfair. How much you are entitled to have and how much to take from you.

[Plantagenet]

Degrowth....is a political, economic, and social movement based on .... anti-capitalist ideas.

Its always useful to find a real world example.

I propose Venezuela as an example of degrowth. Venezuela went from capitalism to socialism and the economy began to shrink. Consumption of everything, from cars to TVs gasoline to clothing to food began to shrink as people's incomes went way down. Recycling increased as people scrounged for food as they began to starve. The population downsized as people fled to other countries.

Degrowth.....its not just a theoretical idea.

[Pops]

Good thread.

My guess is growth is inevitable with increasing population as long as resources hold out. I just don't see degrowth happening considering we're wired to load up on whatever in anticipation of the next starvation.

But doesn't matter how much consumers want to consume and capitalists want to capitalize, if the population is declining growth ain't gonna happen and systems will change. In all the threads about population here no one seems to appreciates just how big hormonal birth control is to the future. Given the choice, it seems women won't keep popin out little brats every time the old man has a hankerin'.

Degrowth as lifestyle option is possible, I've stopped saying things are impossible, but IMO is unlikely unless it is in response to some bad things happening. Structural degrowth via birth control OTOH is inevitable I believe, tho I'm not sure if we will do it in time to have anything left to degrow to or that we'll not degrow so much we crash a la Children of Men - one baby does not a baby boom make!

[Plantagenet]

Good thread.

My guess is growth is inevitable with increasing population as long as resources hold out.

Not at all. Look at Venezuela. They've achieved significant amounts of degrowth. There is no reason the US couldn't achieve equal success at degrowth simply by adopting socialist economic programs as Venezuela has done.

[Ibon]

Rather, "degrowthers" aim to maximize happiness and well-being through non-consumptive means—sharing work, consuming less, while devoting more time to art, music, family, nature, culture and community

This represents a cultural shift of values. This comes up today really only in wealthy nations where individuals, jaded with consumer culture, make individual choices to increase well being by consuming less. Individuals who then find other like minded friends to share similar non consumption pursuits. That is as far as it goes at the moment with this representing a cultural shift.

In contrast to jaded consumer cultures, think of a nation like China, experiencing its first or second generation of economic growth and the rise of consumer culture. Fat chance getting any head way there with the philosophy of a degrowth movement where practically every citizen is chasing the glitter of increased consumption.


Truth be told most states find it convenient to encourage their citizens to move away from wellbeing and more towards the mind numbing pursuits of consumption. It keeps citizens asleep. This is what those in power want. Putting any kind of policy in place that targets well being is risking waking up the citizenry. Consumption is a narcotic.

[Cog]

Or we let resource limits guide degrowth instead of the usual solutions proposed, which involve the heavy hand of government bureaucracy.

[Newfie]

Considering the fact that "perpetual growth" is non-negotiational as far as politicians and business leaders are concerned, such a movement will have extreme dificulty gaining traction.

They even go as far as importing people into European countries to ensure that growth continues, just to indicate just how difficult it will be to achieve.

Impossibly difficult, until it happens because the population collapses. Most likely scenario.

I’m not gonna knock some folks for trying to think their way out of this.

[Newfie]

Or we let resource limits guide degrowth instead of the usual solutions proposed, which involve the heavy hand of government bureaucracy.

Most likely scenario. Also the one that assures the most agony and worst possible results.

To be honest I think a lot of socialist/communist have jumped on this bandwagon and turned it to their own ends. And that disturbs me. But it’s effing typical of humans. What got me was that in the articles I read NO ONE mentioned over population as an issue. So I think the movement, as young as it is, has been politicized.

If you read the summary of early writings about energy and consumption there you find a lot of straight talking.

[Cog]

"A small tax on CO2 would turn the corner."

There is that heavy hand of government coming into play. Can't you guys ever come up with solutions that don't involve government controlling every aspect of our lives? If green energy makes economic sense it will be adopted. If it doesn't, it won't.

[GHung]

......... Can't you guys ever come up with solutions that don't involve government controlling every aspect of our lives?

Can you?

[Cog]

......... Can't you guys ever come up with solutions that don't involve government controlling every aspect of our lives?

Can you?

Nope and I have no desire to do so. Unlike the legions of folks here that love governmental intervention into every aspect of life, I prefer to be left alone to conduct my own affairs. Freedom be scary bro.

[GHung]

......... Can't you guys ever come up with solutions that don't involve government controlling every aspect of our lives?

Can you?

Nope and I have no desire to do so. Unlike the legions of folks here that love governmental intervention into every aspect of life, I prefer to be left alone to conduct my own affairs. Freedom be scary bro.

There isn't a 'legion of folks' here, and I, too, enjoy my freedom when I can. Then again, I understand that my current situation depends in large part on a mass of some 7+ billion humans keeping their collective shit together, and not imposing their brand of "freedom" on me. There are many things you and I can't do, like building roads, incarcerating evil-doers, fielding a military, helping all those who need it, providing services for the greater good,,,, all that. I'd rather not spend my nights standing watches because TS has HTF, even if I'm somewhat free to prepare for that sort of thing.

I guess you'll, on your own, handle the guy who is free to shit in your drinking water. Or the group who is free to take your land. Or the people in India who stole your identity, or the asshole who decided to do a little insider trading of stocks that you hold .......

[Ibon]

Or we let resource limits guide degrowth instead of the usual solutions proposed, which involve the heavy hand of government bureaucracy.

Believing in the invisible hand of the market to solve this is kind of like believing in the invisible man in the sky watching over you as you sleep.

[Ibon]

A big part of the freedom I enjoy today was because of my rejection of consumption culture starting in my old hitch hiking days. When I did have to pay my dues in the world of commerce when I started a family I saved every penny and only bought used cars and paid off mortgages exactly to gain the financial indepedence to be able to exit and do what I am doing today. My values got set deep in wilderness and with the freedom of the road back in my early 20's.
That was the best inoculation and vaccination against consumption culture and going into debt. It is still paying dividends.

I am an anomaly. So are most of you. Cog and I are vastly different in our politics and yet we both share a philosophy where frugality = freedom. As much as he embraces capitalism he has not embraced consumption culture like some of his colleagues who he watched go into debt.

Question: How do you really get the majority of a culture to wean themselves from the narcotic effects of consumption?

I am not sure government regulation can do much.

The culture as a whole needs an awakening. Call it wisdom, spiritual, or whatever. Clearly the culture is sorely lacking as many use consumption as a compensation for unfulfilled lives.

I have stated that the vast majority of humanity today represents trash culture.

You cant really address policy without addressing the woeful spiritual deficit afflicting the human race at the moment.

[Tanada]

Or we let resource limits guide degrowth instead of the usual solutions proposed, which involve the heavy hand of government bureaucracy.

Most likely scenario. Also the one that assures the most agony and worst possible results.

To be honest I think a lot of socialist/communist have jumped on this bandwagon and turned it to their own ends. And that disturbs me. But it’s effing typical of humans. What got me was that in the articles I read NO ONE mentioned over population as an issue. So I think the movement, as young as it is, has been politicized.

If you read the summary of early writings about energy and consumption there you find a lot of straight talking.

Agreed for the most part, but strongly disagree with

Also the one that assures the most agony and worst possible results.

Things are going to change and just like any birthing process there will be pain and blood. The new cultural norms that come out the other side however will be fresh and new and will base their structure on the conditions that exist at that time.

New cultures also have great vigor and tend to draw a lot of imitators if they excel at surviving in then current conditions. The USA from 1945-2001 had that kind of cultural influence and spread our cheap oil based consumer culture to every corner of the globe. Take away cheap energy and that culture dies and something else grows up from the ashes.

[Ibon]

Good post Tanada.

Often the polarity that splits and divides cultures before the bottle neck gets resolved in what emerges on the other side. This debate about the freedom of the individual vs. submitting to government regulation may very well be an example.

[Pops]

This represents a cultural shift of values. This comes up today really only in wealthy nations where individuals, jaded with consumer culture, make individual choices to increase well being by consuming less.

The problem in even talking about "growth", as we've always said, is the metric. GDP as commonly used assumes all spending is additive and higher is always better: crime, war, insurer profits, money-for-nothing from any rentier activity, etc, etc, all add to gdp.

Much of the disaffection, alienation and feeling "left behind" today is because we've been hearing for 50 years right up to yesterday that "GDP growth is so strong!" but when we open that checking account app our balance doesn't look so strong.

Rentier capitalism refers to monopolization of access to any (physical, financial, intellectual, etc.) kind of property, and gaining significant amounts of profit without contribution to society. Compare that to the period from say the 30s-80s where income distribution was much flatter, most of GDP was about producing things rather than profits.

At the same time pollution, resource depletion and better vehicle safety don't count... in fact "gdp" would increase if seat belts disappeared because injuries and so medical expenditure would rise creating jobs and investment opportunities and of course profit.

GDP stopped being relevant, if it ever was, when "growth" decoupled from happiness and you'll notice this picture looks just like the wages/productivity chart which reflects the rise of those same rentier activities as well as the Reagan revolution which put an end to when America was great by returning to the regime of all gains trickling up.


GPI

Unfortunately, the reason this type of metric, GPI or similar, will not be replacing GDP anytime soon mainly because it adjusts for income distribution, and in our society the less income is distributed the better it is for the people buying the decisions and making the headlines. Imagine CNBC breathlessly reporting GPI Stagnates 43rd Year!