Opinion of the degrowth movement

[justfollowingtheelections]

What is your opinion of the degrowth movement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

Would you support a political party with this agenda?

[ElectionsGuy]

Where's the LOL option?

[Goldwater]

Awful.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Although the movement itself is rather silly, so is the notion that endless growth is possible (well it might be, but not until we start colonizing space)

[Mr. Smith]

Like Marxism or Anarchy, it's the best direction and ultimately it's right that growth has to curbed at some point, but ultimately far too naive.

[politicus]

What is your opinion of the degrowth movement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

Would you support a political party with this agenda?

A steady state economy is a more attainable goal and would function better, but we could get to the point where actual degrowth is necessary.

In principle some growth can be obtained without increased resource consumption.

The burden of proof is on those who think  eternal growth is possible.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I wonder how many of you actually read the wikipedia article before you responded.

[politicus]

Like Marxism or Anarchy, it's the best direction and ultimately it's right that growth has to curbed at some point, but ultimately far too naive.

Its a false comparison. There is a huge difference between societal and social goals, which we can live without, and natural boundaries for resource depletion where we don't really have a choice.

Its ultimately a "gun to your head"-situation.

Eternal growth is a very naive idea.

[New_Conservative]

Oh my god, I would leave the country if the political party advocating for this insanity came into power.

[RR1997]

Lol

Obvious HP is obvious.

Don't support it.

[AggregateDemand]

Just another criminal act perpetrated by olds with money against the youngs who want to earn money. Economies can grow entirely on intellectual property, and the sun bombards the earth with more energy than we could ever use. Perpetual growth is sustainable. If the world population declines, income per capita and GDP per capita will still be rising.

[traininthedistance]

Obviously this is the sort of movement that most people will react with visceral horror to– growth has been the engine of civilization since basically forever, and asking people to voluntarily give that up will be read as nihilistic.  As such, I'm obviously not going to vote for something that has no hope of taking power and making a positive difference anywhere.  And, well, I'm not immune to the horror reaction myself.  Best to hope and act like the sustainable development paradigm can actually work instead, whether it actually does or not.

But, if I'm putting on my impractical philosopher cap here... they get a bad rap, and we as a species would do well to look past that visceral horror and see what they have to say that might be perceptive and helpful.  I think their rejection of the rat race paradigm- valuing free time rather than moar stuffs– is something that we can afford to do in the developed world, and would probably be happier if we took to heart.  And, well, they take the implications of Jevon's Paradox seriously, and even if you don't want to endorse their conclusions (even I blanch at them), it's an argument that's we do seriously need to grapple with.

As far as the standard economic assumption of eternal growth... ultimately these guys are too pessimistic, as technological advances can probably stretch our resources for quite some time.  But, in the long enough run, we will hit some sort of wall, even if it's not energy per se but some sort of other resource (peak copper? peak phosphorous anyone?).  Naive cornucopianism is really not any better than these folks.

[Redalgo]

The proper scale of an economy, in my opinion, is to be maximized within boundaries set by carrying capacities, animal rights considerations, and aspirations to preserve an abundance of wilderness areas. A lot of countries are still mostly alright in planning for growth whereas others like the U.S. have in some ways overshot what is sustainable. Technology holds promise to allow responsible growth here for millennia to come, but the gains in efficiency should come first rather than as an afterthought people then look to for rationalizing unchecked expansion as in the best interests of future generations.

However, given the cultural landscapes that flourish around the globe today degrowth is an impractical course of action when compared to somewhat riskier alternatives like technogaianism. Humanity still tends to be very inwardly focused and nearsighted in its developmental goals, and the diffusion of Western culture to less affluent nations threatens to strengthen that trend for quite a long time. In theory I would be willing to support a party calling for degrowth but there are other viable paths to sustainability out there people seem far likelier to tread without having to be severely coerced.

[Foucaulf]

Obviously this is the sort of movement that most people will react with visceral horror to– growth has been the engine of civilization since basically forever about three centuries ago, and asking people to voluntarily give that up will be read as nihilistic.

Just a correction; some economic historians like to talk about "Hockey Stick Growth," in which per-capital national product growth only rocketed in Europe with the Industrial Revolution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know much about Jevons's Paradox - it seems one of those economic trends people tend to dismiss, especially as energy sources are developed totally different in nature from fossil fuels. I will say that the policies these activists impose are rather ambiguous and staid - "localization," limiting the finance sector and so forth. It all seems to me like an ideology from people trying to maintain their assets and social position, hoping to insure it from growth and recession, as well as telling others poorer to learn to love living in relative scarcity. I find that regressive in a less discussed manner.

(God, I hope I don't sound like AggregateDemand there)

[traininthedistance]

Obviously this is the sort of movement that most people will react with visceral horror to– growth has been the engine of civilization since basically forever about three centuries ago, and asking people to voluntarily give that up will be read as nihilistic.

Just a correction; some economic historians like to talk about "Hockey Stick Growth," in which per-capital national product growth only rocketed in Europe with the Industrial Revolution.

That's fair; though of course the Industrial Revolution brought us (at least those of us comfortable enough to spend time on the Internet ) such a disproportionate amount of our creature comforts that the distinction is somewhat academic.  People will still recoil at the thought of halting that gravy train, and such recoiling is still a perfectly sensible reaction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know much about Jevons's Paradox - it seems one of those economic trends people tend to dismiss, especially as energy sources are developed totally different in nature from fossil fuels.

Well, Jevon's Paradox as originally formulated had to do with the consumption of coal, where your point is indeed correct.  But it can be generalized to the idea that "an increase in efficiency of energy use will lead to greater total energy use", where the shifting from one fuel source to another becomes less relevant.  And, yes, less relevant even w/r/t renewables, which still require inputs like space, rare earth metals, damming up a limited supply of rivers, etc.  It's pretty much just a denial of science to disbelieve that one of those inputs will, eventually, become a limiting factor.  Like I said– peak copper, peak phosphorous...

I will say that the policies these activists impose are rather ambiguous and staid - "localization," limiting the finance sector and so forth.

Agreed 100 percent on "localization", which has always seemed more of a sentimental argument than an economic one. (Not that we should necessarily try to stamp sentiment out of public policy in favor of just cold hard numbers, to be fair...)  As for limiting the financial sector, the details matter A LOT but I was under the impression that definancializing the economy somewhat was just straightforward good sense that doesn't require one to accept the degrowth paradigm, or anything similarly radical, to support.

It all seems to me like an ideology from people trying to maintain their assets and social position, hoping to insure it from growth and recession, as well as telling others poorer to learn to love living in relative scarcity. I find that regressive in a less discussed manner.

That strikes me as a maximally uncharitable misinterpretation, but whatever.  Also worth noting that I was careful to say "developed world" and if Wiki is to be believed even many within the movement still support regular growth and development for the Global South.

(God, I hope I don't sound like AggregateDemand there)

At least you're aware of it.  (No, really you don't sound like ArrogantDemand- at least not beyond internalizing the "oh noes caring about sustainability makes you an elitist" canard, which, well, you're in sadly widespread and distinguished company there.)  

Again, while I clearly have more sympathy for them than your average Atlasian I'm not actually a degrowth proponent or anything.  Just trying to play devil's advocate/salvage what good points they do actually have.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Although it's naive and sometimes rather regressive, I don't see why it's inherently hilarious to imagine a vision of society not driven by profit and gigantic institutions. Of the "concrete proposals" only one (the elimination of fiat money) strikes me as potentially disastrous, and I'll admit that's mainly because I'm rather small c conservative on monetary policy, and do not wish to fix what doesn't seem to be broken.

Other than that things like the reduction of waste or the reuse of empty houses or the elimination of car culture seem to be rather logical (and indeed necessary) proposals.

[traininthedistance]

Although it's naive and sometimes rather regressive, I don't see why it's inherently hilarious to imagine a vision of society not driven by profit and gigantic institutions. Of the "concrete proposals" only one (the elimination of fiat money) strikes me as potentially disastrous, and I'll admit that's mainly because I'm rather small c conservative on monetary policy, and do not wish to fix what doesn't seem to be broken.

Other than that things like the reduction of waste or the reuse of empty houses or the elimination of car culture seem to be rather logical (and indeed necessary) proposals.

Yeah, the elimination of fiat money is a capital-B Bad Idea and quite probably the single largest reason I wouldn't actually sign on to their program even if it was politically feasible.

[AggregateDemand]

Although it's naive and sometimes rather regressive, I don't see why it's inherently hilarious to imagine a vision of society not driven by profit and gigantic institutions.

If that were the underlying assumption of the degrowth movement, people might take it more seriously, since it's basically what Adam Smith said about moral sentiments within markets. However, degrowth supposes is that humans can't learn more, play more, travel more, buy more art, performance, and intellectual property. Instead, humans can only rape and pillage the earth to buy more tangible possessions (according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics); therefore, we must kill economic growth to stop rampant consumerism.

It's an unreasonably depressive and pessimistic view of humanity, predicated on misunderstanding of profit-motive, and refusal to acknowledge the growth-related role of labor and monetary capital (not just natural resources).

Degrowth is a philosophical vessel for the anti-consumerism factions that seek retribution rather than reconciliation or enlightenment. Adherents are primarily well-to-do in the global sense, and most of their economic needs have already been met.

[bedstuy]

It's a horrible impractical idea that understandably appeals to well-intentioned, naive people.  But, unfortunately the bike path to Hell's vegan local eco co-op is paved with good intentions.

I think there's a major problem on the left and center of politics with reducing everything down into economics.  So, when people see that pure capitalism doesn't give people happiness or meaning, they think it's a flaw in capitalism.  But, people aren't purely economic beings.  They don't really care about economic systems per se, they want an economic system that can support the best lifestyle for themselves and to a lesser extent, their country and to an even lesser extent, the rest of the world.  And, that's fine because it's human nature after all.  

The lesson that these people should learn is that there are non-economic human needs, love, friendship, community, narrative, a sense of purpose.  Unfortunately, too many of us are too afraid to wade into these societal issues because they're afraid of the man-made divisions we create for ourselves.  People are so worried about this idea of "who are you to tell me how to live my life?" that they make society this Balkanized husk where we're always defending our turf and never talking about what ties us together.  For example, I think the obsession with race and gender on the left is a major symptom of this problem.

[Deus Naturae]

Putting a hard limit on growth means putting a hard limit on living standards. Even if you think sustainability concerns present a danger to future growth, surely there's a better solution that simply forcing society to remain in stasis in its current stage of economic development (or revert to an even more primitive state)?

[traininthedistance]

The lesson that these people should learn is that there are non-economic human needs, love, friendship, community, narrative, a sense of purpose.

I think you're misreading these folks, because uh it looks to me like that's exactly the lesson they're trying to teach?

[bedstuy]

The lesson that these people should learn is that there are non-economic human needs, love, friendship, community, narrative, a sense of purpose.

I think you're misreading these folks, because uh it looks to me like that's exactly the lesson they're trying to teach?

No, because their approach is an alternative to economics,  those things are an supplement to economics.  They have the right general diagnosis, but the wrong cure.  It's like reducing a fever by bloodletting.   And, that's the impression I get.  Instead of addressing the non-economic issues in society, they want to implement a litany of terrible economic ideas. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are all fundamentally economic, based on the Marxist idea that people are mostly economic beings.  It's all just begging the question, right?

[traininthedistance]

The lesson that these people should learn is that there are non-economic human needs, love, friendship, community, narrative, a sense of purpose.

I think you're misreading these folks, because uh it looks to me like that's exactly the lesson they're trying to teach?

No, because their approach is an alternative to economics,  those things are an supplement to economics.  They have the right general diagnosis, but the wrong cure.  It's like reducing a fever by bloodletting.   And, that's the impression I get.  Instead of addressing the non-economic issues in society, they want to implement a litany of terrible economic ideas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are all fundamentally economic, based on the Marxist idea that people are mostly economic beings.  It's all just begging the question, right?

Those ideas are neither uniformly "fundamentally economic", nor are they entirely terrible.  Sure, some are indeed both- eliminating fiat money is just The Worst, yes.  But I'd argue that something like "participative approaches to decision-making" is orthogonal to a dollars-and-cents economic view, and even something like "Minimize the waste production with education and legal instruments" has to do a lot more with promoting those sorts of healthy values you cite than it does with Homo economicus.

And come on, I've seen you promote many of these things yourself. Don't try and pretend that "transitioning from a car-based system", something that to your credit you've advocated, is now loony Marxism just because these guys like it too.

[bedstuy]

I'm making a subtle distinction here.  I'm sure there could be some element of these people that actually see things my way.

But,t there are issues where anti-globalization, anti-capitalist people are right, but for the wrong reasons.  When you begin with these sorts of premises about how capitalism is flawed, you just lose me right there.  The market and private property are the two basic principles that have a spectacular track record of improving the lot of human beings.  The way I see the world is that you don't refute the implications of the capitalist economic in society, you just add the implications of sociology, psychology, etc. 

[Foucaulf]

Returning back to this:

The lesson that these people should learn is that there are non-economic human needs, love, friendship, community, narrative, a sense of purpose.  Unfortunately, too many of us are too afraid to wade into these societal issues because they're afraid of the man-made divisions we create for ourselves ...  For example, I think the obsession with race and gender on the left is a major symptom of this problem.

I'm pretty sure activists and poor people fall in love, have friends and find a sense of purpose (why would they spend time being activists otherwise)? The problem is whether you belief you find those things with the help of a market economy or in spite of a market economy. For those who believe in the latter, their logic is something like growth in the market economy only accumulates wealth into a group of people with views and preferences incommensurably different from yours. Why would you want to pour your wealth and time into the system?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Something I've come to accept is that "the market" is also an abstraction, and not a natural way of viewing things. Herbert Simon had a nice allegory about it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're a Jew living in the heart of NYC, where independent businesses are plenty and competitive, the abstraction of the market seems more sensible. If you grew up in an exurb whose economy centres either on commuter rail or the Wal-Mart that moved into town, competitive markets would make less sense to you. And if that's the only flavour of capitalism you have known, isn't it plausible that you would call for something different?