Degrowth
Am facinated by the Degrowth movement. I believe with all my heart that it is the only way forward the question now is whether people will adopt it out of necessity or willing enlightenment. I can't see a way that they will adopt anything but the most rudimentary degrowth principles without all alternaives being removed through taxation (which won't happen) of some form - maybe tarrifs.
I look forward to the day when a respected MBA course teaches degrowth as a profitable avenue or at least if not wildly financially profitable then a responsible avenue and one worthy of respect. MBAs will eventually teach how to live an optimal degrowthed life, getting the balance right between resource consumption and contribution.
Modern economic teachings are a recipe for disaster. I hear more and more about how businesses need to keep growing but I don't know if (m)any of the commentators have stopped to ask why that is necessary. Can't a business survive in its environment without growing or only grow at the pace of the growth of it's economy - continuing to occupy the same equivalent space? This relentless pursuit of growth has destroyed as much wealth as it has created (I accept that this is a non-provable claim but so too is any opposing claim). How many times do we see business acquire another business only to drive it under or sell it off at a loss because the desire was to grow the bottom-line rather than stick to the knitting and solidify the original business?
Growth of businesses will come when that business adds value to the society that it serves. For as long as that is the case the growth looks after itself. If you play with that and try to grow for growth's sake you defy nature and it can't last.
Bring on Degrowth and let's see what the economy does with it. I'll take my fair share of the cut in living standards required because I'll take my fair share of increase in quality of life.
Comments
Degrowth is it? A half baked
Degrowth is it? A half baked idea for the simple.
I particularly like the line "economic growth has failed to improve the lives of people and leads to environmental degradation". Really ?? Don't tell that to the people in the developing world, because they will tell you, you are crazy. Many having moved from bare existence to a significantly better standard of living.
How does economic growth lead to environmental degradation? For many hundreds of years the River Thames in London was just a open sewer, when England was basically still agricultural. By 1850 all fish had died as well as all birds that used the river. In the 1900s, all that changed and the river is now clean. There are many examples of environmental improvements all over the world helped in part by economic growth that enabled governments to collect higher taxes to help solve the issue.
Or what about modern medicine, that improves the lives of millions each year in rich and developing countries from growing and expanding pharmaceutical companies
All of mans great achievements has occurred because people wanted something better. Something happened only because economic prosperity allowed it to happen. Many great works of art in Europe and North America, exists today because of wealthy patrons spread their growing wealth.
Degrowth?? In the old days it was called economic socialism (where are you Marx and Stalin and friends). Of which there are no countries that have tried it and still use it, even Cuba operates under partial capitalism. It has all failed.
But if you want to start a little commune somewhere, go right ahead. There are still many ex-hippies around who can share their experience.
- Login to post comments
"How does economic growth
"How does economic growth lead to environmental degradation?" Really? are you serious? Why would anyone read another word after you postulate that the lifecycle of the River Thames is a compelling argument that no harm came from industrialization and growth? Why did all the fish die in the first place?
Who is repopulating the river deltas that are dead zones because of fertilzer wash off? Just because the Thames looks relatively good now doesn't mean that no harm has been done. Wow what an argument to try to make. Incredible. Literally.
- Login to post comments
I'm not so sure about the
I'm not so sure about the concept of "degrowth," in the same way that I'm a skeptic about "voluntary simplicity" - mainly because both are highly unrealistic (the fact that we're having this debate on the internet using sophisticated technology supports this case) and rarely achievable without profound government intervention and regulation.
With an exploding human population, simply saying "we're not going to grow anymore" or "we're not going to take that light rapid transit line they just built" is kind of ridiculous.
However, what about looking at growth differently, in the same sense as increasing housing density (building up and better, instead of out), combined with development of technologies and behavioural education to encourage (and yes, in some cases, require through government regulation) people and companies to use less energy and resources, create their products and use the land differently, and to use those resources do use more efficiently and with less impact on the environment and communities.
Is it possible to make life better for people, the earth and the environment, and make a living while reducing our net impact?
- Login to post comments
Degrowth is a political,
Degrowth is a political, economic, and social movement based on environmentalist, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideas. Degrowth thinkers and activists advocate for the downscaling of production and consumption—the contraction of economies—as 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 and a decrease in well-being. Rather, 'degrowthists' aim to maximize happiness and well-being through non-consumptive means—sharing work, consuming less, while devoting more time to art, music, family, culture and community.
At the individual level, degrowth is achieved by voluntary simplicity. Global solutions, for ‘degrowthists’, involve a relocalization of economic activities in order to end humanity's dependence on fossil fuels and reduce its ecological imprint. Degrowth opposes sustainable development because, while sustainable development aims to address environmental concerns, it does so with the goal of promoting economic growth which has failed to improve the lives of people and inevitably leads to environmental degradation. In this way, degrowth stands in sharp contrast to current forms of productivist capitalism that consider the accumulation of capital and commodities a desirable end.