I read your books, and Jason Hickel's, and I wish you were working together instead of throwing such an article at him.
We all are in a terrible bind, economically and ecologically. I'll admit that I have a lot of sympathy for asceticism and degrowth positions. To me, as for many in that field, the future economic development of the world is as much a moral problem born out of the exploitation of the global south, as it is one about economics or technology. What's your "solution" compass, if the moral compass of degrowth only earns your spite? In what direction would you lead?
My inner compass tells me that the direction of degrowth is overall correct, even though we do not have all the solutions. What's wrong with starting with the measures Hickel proposes as starting points? Cuts to advertising, scaling down ecologically destructive industries, right to repair, shift to usership?
On your regression critique - what's wrong with learning from great examples? Of course it's possible in healthcare say to compare systems and find that solidarity-based ones are not always, but often, more successful to ensure basic care for all (but then leave less service for the best care for the ultra-rich). Of course it's true that good public transport would reduce the need for private car ownership and associated env damage and space requirements. Of course it is true that consumption levels in the west of wealthy people could be significantly reduced without any truly measurable reduction in the standard of living. And that standard of living is based on monstrous appropriation.
Last but not least: yes, working less and having access to a garden improves life satisfaction and reduces stress levels. And no, in the west pretty much nobody will starve if we had a four day work week and distributed wages and most importantly capital more fairly.
It could turn out though that we actually have to work more for our own lifes, because bangladeshi women might just stop making our shirts for shitty 3 € a day. And if we keep the current "brilliant" capitalist-consumer model that you deem unreformable, well, then humanity is nothing short of fucked, and I'll take all my chances with a just and equitable transformation.
If I ruled the world I would shut down almost all production and mandate a change of lifestyle for every human. I would organize people into small communities that would provide their own food, clothing and shelter. Health care clinics would service each, supported by larger systems treating more serious issues. They would own their homes and share almost everything else, work, food, building, whatever is needed.
How does one convert the thinking and actions of hundreds of millions of people? I would have to be a dictator.
None of this fantasy addresses how to deconstruct, dismantle and destroy corporations and their deadly powers.
I don't see a solution. I really don't.
By the time, say 20 years from now, the damage is so extreme that it's undeniable, it will be too late. All that will be left is hospice.
It's a fantasy of desperation. We don't have a hundred years to reeducate people in life-sustaining priorities. In thinking humans are the most important thing on earth they have destroyed themselves. I like your term “Birkenstock Totalitarianism.” It made me smile.
I came for a critique of degrowth and found a very logically argued position on degrowth and why degrowther somehow believe squaring the circle is possible.
It feels like the author assumes a human nature rather than a human condition.
De-growth isn't magical circle squaring, it an attempt the square the contradictions of infinite growth and finite resources. Reducing one use items, fast fashion, increasing public transport, food production, education and so on. There are so many productive solutions which are simple but sacrificed in the name of profit. Planned obsolescence springs to mind. We have been conditioned to consume in the ways we do. There have been many ways to govern since the forming of civilization. Mass consumerism and our "democracy" are but one. One which has exploited and extracted, and chance can happen.
A debt driven economy based on growth and the dream of being the one that makes it to the 1%. That's the magical thinking. One only needs to look at the research journal industry, medical & pharmacy, food produce sectors to see the clear harm of the need to be in a constant cycle of growth does.
I came for some critique of degrowth, only to find a few badly articulated rants and in the end, some magical thinking in action: apprently, the author seems convinced that by saying degrowth is magical thinking, this should somehow become magically true...
Indeed, thinking about Hannah Ardent's pulling apart of work and labour as way we can distinguish labour which supports the physiological processes of life, versus work the reification of human thought into things in themselves. Might be a fantastic place to start to distinguish what is in fact importance when tacking human existence on this planet VS the needs of an perfectly changeable "needs" of the economy. Something I talk about here : https://whoknows229466.substack.com/p/deus-in-machina-laboris?r=5a5uj0
The authors came up with six categories to explain most of the difference in happiness between countries: gross domestic product per capita, social support, life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity and perception of corruption levels. Dr. Wang said some results were surprising: Parts of Eastern Europe ranked relatively low on the list, despite having relatively good income levels, while in South America, the reverse was true: Happiness levels tended to be high, given relatively low income levels.
In Finland, a relatively egalitarian society, people tend not to be fixated on “keeping up with the Joneses.”
“People often do pretty well in social comparison,” said Antti Kauppinen, a philosophy professor at the University of Helsinki. “This starts from education; everybody has access to good education. Income and wealth differences are relatively small.”
---
Compare Branko's model: "Dining Alone in a Hyper-Competitive World"
"But with higher incomes and higher labor participation rates, we can afford expensive utility bills, we can provide for our old age and a comfortable old-age home (so broadly advertised today). Our children (if we have any) will be too far away, cast around by the availability of jobs and hyper-competitiveness to take care of us.
Being alone is both our preference and a response to a world of competitiveness, commodification and higher incomes. The new world that we can glean will not be dystopian. It will be a Utopia, with a twist."
"they and the rest of us live in two different ideological worlds" The rest of us?
I'm a fan of your work but how do you propose that we avoid impending environmental breakdown (of which climate change is perhaps the most serious threat but by no means the only one) while maintaining growth? How do we have infinite growth on a finite planet? I think the degrowth position reflects a degree of desperation about how to maintain complex human civilization in the long term in a fair manner while recognizing that, for instance, it is simply not possible for everyone on Earth to expect to attain the average standard of living of a comfortable American suburbanite. Obviously if we're talking about what's politically possible, degrowth doesn't seem like an option at all, but even from a theoretical perspective I'm not sure how you square the environmental circle.
This is a good articulation of the challenges that need to be solved to even out standards of living without destroying the conditions for standards of living. All it takes is the courage to turn semi-magical ideas into experiments. Let’s put our best minds on it.
I’m one of the few degrowthers who don’t engage in magical thinking, I state clearly that we need to reduce human population by orders of magnitude, while reducing consumption in rich countries by orders of magnitude, and I absolutely understand this would not be popular, but … if we don’t do these things voluntarily then reality will do them for us.
Either manage your way down the other side of Peak Everything, or tumble down uncontrollably.
I don’t actually expect we will plan and execute a managed way down, but I’m honest.
Is degrowth an example of when an admirable personal philosophy or sentiment does not scale to the political realm? Many individuals WOULD be happier with less stuff and more time to garden, but as you say try getting elected with that programme. Should we err on the side of forgiveness? At a personal level, probably yes, but that doesn't scale to a functioning justice system. Should we err on the side of generosity? Again yes, at a personal level; but that doesn't necessarily scale to a functioning welfare system (noting that these CAN be counterproductively miserly).
I read your books, and Jason Hickel's, and I wish you were working together instead of throwing such an article at him.
We all are in a terrible bind, economically and ecologically. I'll admit that I have a lot of sympathy for asceticism and degrowth positions. To me, as for many in that field, the future economic development of the world is as much a moral problem born out of the exploitation of the global south, as it is one about economics or technology. What's your "solution" compass, if the moral compass of degrowth only earns your spite? In what direction would you lead?
My inner compass tells me that the direction of degrowth is overall correct, even though we do not have all the solutions. What's wrong with starting with the measures Hickel proposes as starting points? Cuts to advertising, scaling down ecologically destructive industries, right to repair, shift to usership?
On your regression critique - what's wrong with learning from great examples? Of course it's possible in healthcare say to compare systems and find that solidarity-based ones are not always, but often, more successful to ensure basic care for all (but then leave less service for the best care for the ultra-rich). Of course it's true that good public transport would reduce the need for private car ownership and associated env damage and space requirements. Of course it is true that consumption levels in the west of wealthy people could be significantly reduced without any truly measurable reduction in the standard of living. And that standard of living is based on monstrous appropriation.
Last but not least: yes, working less and having access to a garden improves life satisfaction and reduces stress levels. And no, in the west pretty much nobody will starve if we had a four day work week and distributed wages and most importantly capital more fairly.
It could turn out though that we actually have to work more for our own lifes, because bangladeshi women might just stop making our shirts for shitty 3 € a day. And if we keep the current "brilliant" capitalist-consumer model that you deem unreformable, well, then humanity is nothing short of fucked, and I'll take all my chances with a just and equitable transformation.
If I ruled the world I would shut down almost all production and mandate a change of lifestyle for every human. I would organize people into small communities that would provide their own food, clothing and shelter. Health care clinics would service each, supported by larger systems treating more serious issues. They would own their homes and share almost everything else, work, food, building, whatever is needed.
How does one convert the thinking and actions of hundreds of millions of people? I would have to be a dictator.
None of this fantasy addresses how to deconstruct, dismantle and destroy corporations and their deadly powers.
I don't see a solution. I really don't.
By the time, say 20 years from now, the damage is so extreme that it's undeniable, it will be too late. All that will be left is hospice.
The corporations got what they wanted.
“Mandate a change of lifestyle for every human” Totalitarianism in Birkenstocks.
It's a fantasy of desperation. We don't have a hundred years to reeducate people in life-sustaining priorities. In thinking humans are the most important thing on earth they have destroyed themselves. I like your term “Birkenstock Totalitarianism.” It made me smile.
I came for a critique of degrowth and found a very logically argued position on degrowth and why degrowther somehow believe squaring the circle is possible.
It feels like the author assumes a human nature rather than a human condition.
De-growth isn't magical circle squaring, it an attempt the square the contradictions of infinite growth and finite resources. Reducing one use items, fast fashion, increasing public transport, food production, education and so on. There are so many productive solutions which are simple but sacrificed in the name of profit. Planned obsolescence springs to mind. We have been conditioned to consume in the ways we do. There have been many ways to govern since the forming of civilization. Mass consumerism and our "democracy" are but one. One which has exploited and extracted, and chance can happen.
A debt driven economy based on growth and the dream of being the one that makes it to the 1%. That's the magical thinking. One only needs to look at the research journal industry, medical & pharmacy, food produce sectors to see the clear harm of the need to be in a constant cycle of growth does.
I came for some critique of degrowth, only to find a few badly articulated rants and in the end, some magical thinking in action: apprently, the author seems convinced that by saying degrowth is magical thinking, this should somehow become magically true...
Not convinced.
Very reductionist view of degrowth as well as the problems it attempts to solve.
Indeed, thinking about Hannah Ardent's pulling apart of work and labour as way we can distinguish labour which supports the physiological processes of life, versus work the reification of human thought into things in themselves. Might be a fantastic place to start to distinguish what is in fact importance when tacking human existence on this planet VS the needs of an perfectly changeable "needs" of the economy. Something I talk about here : https://whoknows229466.substack.com/p/deus-in-machina-laboris?r=5a5uj0
Totally! Really well said.
Congratulations on defeating your strawman in a very red scare fashion! I'm sure this took a lot of effort.
I read your article looking for the proposition, alternative to degrowth. I didn’t find it could you reiterate it please?
This is excellent, more people need to speak out against degrowth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/world/europe/world-happiness-report-ranking.html
The authors came up with six categories to explain most of the difference in happiness between countries: gross domestic product per capita, social support, life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity and perception of corruption levels. Dr. Wang said some results were surprising: Parts of Eastern Europe ranked relatively low on the list, despite having relatively good income levels, while in South America, the reverse was true: Happiness levels tended to be high, given relatively low income levels.
In Finland, a relatively egalitarian society, people tend not to be fixated on “keeping up with the Joneses.”
“People often do pretty well in social comparison,” said Antti Kauppinen, a philosophy professor at the University of Helsinki. “This starts from education; everybody has access to good education. Income and wealth differences are relatively small.”
---
Compare Branko's model: "Dining Alone in a Hyper-Competitive World"
http://glineq.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-to-dine-alonein-hyper-competitive.html
"But with higher incomes and higher labor participation rates, we can afford expensive utility bills, we can provide for our old age and a comfortable old-age home (so broadly advertised today). Our children (if we have any) will be too far away, cast around by the availability of jobs and hyper-competitiveness to take care of us.
Being alone is both our preference and a response to a world of competitiveness, commodification and higher incomes. The new world that we can glean will not be dystopian. It will be a Utopia, with a twist."
"they and the rest of us live in two different ideological worlds" The rest of us?
Your fantasy is Las Vegas with health care.
Seems like the problem is capitalism 👍🏽
Profit-maximization is not inherent to capitalism, but some level of capitalistic private-property rights are inherent to growth
“Profit maximisation is not inherent to capitalism” … point me to one capitalist society that was not based around profit
I'm a fan of your work but how do you propose that we avoid impending environmental breakdown (of which climate change is perhaps the most serious threat but by no means the only one) while maintaining growth? How do we have infinite growth on a finite planet? I think the degrowth position reflects a degree of desperation about how to maintain complex human civilization in the long term in a fair manner while recognizing that, for instance, it is simply not possible for everyone on Earth to expect to attain the average standard of living of a comfortable American suburbanite. Obviously if we're talking about what's politically possible, degrowth doesn't seem like an option at all, but even from a theoretical perspective I'm not sure how you square the environmental circle.
Masterclass in straw-manning an argument. From under which arse cheek did you pull those figures out?
This is a good articulation of the challenges that need to be solved to even out standards of living without destroying the conditions for standards of living. All it takes is the courage to turn semi-magical ideas into experiments. Let’s put our best minds on it.
I’m one of the few degrowthers who don’t engage in magical thinking, I state clearly that we need to reduce human population by orders of magnitude, while reducing consumption in rich countries by orders of magnitude, and I absolutely understand this would not be popular, but … if we don’t do these things voluntarily then reality will do them for us.
Either manage your way down the other side of Peak Everything, or tumble down uncontrollably.
I don’t actually expect we will plan and execute a managed way down, but I’m honest.
Is degrowth an example of when an admirable personal philosophy or sentiment does not scale to the political realm? Many individuals WOULD be happier with less stuff and more time to garden, but as you say try getting elected with that programme. Should we err on the side of forgiveness? At a personal level, probably yes, but that doesn't scale to a functioning justice system. Should we err on the side of generosity? Again yes, at a personal level; but that doesn't necessarily scale to a functioning welfare system (noting that these CAN be counterproductively miserly).
Please do not mention "war" again, until we've seen what's left after this pandemic.