this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
710 points (97.8% liked)

Simple Living

656 readers
1 users here now

Live better, with less

Ideas and inspiration for living more simply. A place to share tips on living with less stuff, work, speed, or stress in return for gaining more freedom, time, self-reliance, and joy.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NocturnalMorning 82 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not that radical, we lived with less than this for tens of thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This sounds nice for someone in a developed country who has all they need, and is only satisfying their wants. But for most of the world, economic development is a necessity and a lifesaver. Child mortality is reduced, life expectancy and education level increased, child labor decreased, as a country's economy grows. This is not a fringe right-wing idea. This is the very real effect of economic growth in developing countries, i.e. most of the world.

Degrowthers often seem to forget that applying their ideas will literally kill millions in developing countries, by preventing the economic developments that would have saved them.

FWIW, I am not a fan of unbridled capitalism either but think that it is important to consider science in important matters like this and not just go with gut feeling. That applies to both fascism and degrowth.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think a more fair take is that we need growth in underdeveloped places and degrowth in highly developed places. It's less about changing the total economic output and more about changing how that output is distributed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Degrowth addresses that, contrary to your opinion. Degrowth in the global north provides the space for the global south to properly develop, something that has been systematically denied to them in many places by western powers through unequal exchange and neocolonialism.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

It seems like the choice is to die from the environmental issues or die from poor health care? There is no way anyone survives with the current state of things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The article is, in my opinion, purposely mischaracterizing the degrowth movement. I would say degrowth is more a natural reaction to the excesses of capitalism than movement about addressing climate change.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Isn't the former very naturally part of the latter though ? And doesn't the article also raise that point as well? Fundamentally it's an idea that often gets interpreted through both those lenses because it could help with both conflicts, which is also what by definition is it's purposely trying to accomplish, the first explicitly and the second is implicit in

... within planetary boundaries.

This connection I think should be embraced because climate change is more attractive as a topic to most people than critiques of capitalism but obviously one leads naturally into the other. Saying that degrowth aims to address climate change is more just a description of partial content rather than a mischaracterization and the body of the article tries reasonably to explain other parts as well, less work and better well being are right there in the title, both not a dishonest description of other parts of the philosophy.

After all no one that accepts degrowth as a concept would answer the question "Should we degrow to combat climate change ?" with a "No" All answers would be "yes and ..." or "yes but ..."

At the end of the day Vice writing will never be perfect but nowadays for genpop media outlets it tries much harder than most to paint an honest picture of the world, and calling this article a mischaracterization seems to me a little harsh, if you've never heard of it the article certainly could honestly teach and spark interest for a this "new" way of thinking, and you need just one word to google to get more rigorous explanation if you wanted it.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Protip: if you want your movement to gain any political traction, don't call it the degrowth movement

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What would you call it? Its kinda like the "defund police" thing. If they called it "reallocate police resources" opposition to the movement would just use the stronger "defund police" language as a cudgel to smear it. It's best to own it and educate

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] moriquende 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

why? it's exactly what it is.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the average person is too dumb

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do tells us what smooth PR term to use.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Economic resilience

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

In order to slow the economy down and not wreak havoc, he said, we have to reconfigure our ideas about the entire economic system.

This is how degrowthers envision the process: 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.

Sounds good to me. It is a fair point that the basic operation of our society depends on continual growth, but redistribution seems like it would be an effective way of mitigating those problems degrowth might cause. We have more than enough resources to keep everyone alive, we just have to use them.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

"Turn on, tune in, drop out" 2.0

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Yes, we'll save ourselves by resetting the clock and never undoing the conditions that led to where we are

[–] Wogi 7 points 1 year ago

I'm doing my part.

[–] paddirn 5 points 1 year ago

B-B-B-But then multi-billionaires might have to settle for a few billion less!!! How will they survive?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Degrowth is such a fucking stupid idea. What we need is socialism. The demonic oligarchs that run the world are never going to prioritize reducing climate change. They've made that clear over the last century. There's too much profit to be made.

Worker owned means of production is the only solution. Only then can we direct the productive forces toward solving the most immediate problems that humanity faces. We've created so much productivity, but we need to guide it in the direction of sustainability instead of the profit motive.

[–] pedalmore 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're conflating two very different things. You can have an equitable system of worker owned coops that still has a growth mindset and destroys the ecosystem. You don't magically become sustainable when socialism becomes a thing. Growth itself when we're bound by the resources of a single planet a problem, period.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›