"Will never garner political support" is a tricky one. As our politics is currently constituted, no it won't. But as more people realize that we are going to have degrowth by "choice or catastrophe" as Peter Victor says, then they will search for ways to choose "choice". But most people don't know what that means, or what that looks like. That's a large part of why I am writing this, to get these ideas out there to a broader audience.
I'm a little uncertain about what the definition of degrowth is. I'm assuming that it means reduced consumption of resources and consumer goods and a reduction in population over time lowering the growth rate.
I've been preaching that for years now. At this juncture in time reduction in consumption is the only way to slow climate change if at all possible. Unfortunately our society has been programmed and controlled into believing that more is better and that is not going to realistically change in time. We do not have the technology currently to change to a reliable "green energy" society. Hawaii is currently 50% "green energy" and has the highest electric rates in the country. The main problem is backup storage for when solar and wind are not generating. It's being fluffed over and ignored. The entire electric grid is going to have to be restructured as well.
What amazes me most is the fact that electrical engineers haven't brought up these facts. It's nowhere to be seen on the internet. Because it's not politically correct?
My guess/opinion is that the catastrophe is going to occur in the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe less. In 20 years I have not been able to convince one person of the necessity of reduced consumption.
Keep writing. I'm not trying to dissuade you. Maybe you can start something. If not people are going to find out the hard way.
I haven't read through many yet. If you have a description of degrowth that would probably be best. Otherwise I'll have a quick look and pick one. You've done a great deal or writing. Take a look at what I wrote on consumerism.
I live outside a small college town in the US and that sounds about right. Although I loved living in NY when I did for 12 years and never owned a car and walked and took the subway most everywhere.
I remember reading suggestions over the years about the ideal size for an urban community as being perhaps 50k in population? Maybe in an area that encourages walking for most errands and bikes or e-bikes for longer trips. Linking such communities with public rail transit would go along way to change lifestyles and change our environment.
_Degrowth_ to date is mostly ideas. Yet, it already has an opportunity to engage in the real world of action and politics. Population projections ( https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demography ) suggest that global population will peak in 2180 and begin a slow decline. This process is already happening in several richer industrial nations, namely Japan and South Korea. Ethno-nationalists and business elites in those nations are turning attention to the so-called "fertility-rate crisis." Early solutions they propose include incentivizing women to return to earlier marriages and roles as mothers in the household. So far, these "solutions" appear to be failing. Degrowth advocates need to bring forth their alternatives. Can South Korea and Japan transition to an economy that meets real human needs at a lower GDP? Certainly, that can be imagined. The challenge is to make it real.
Degrowth is a sane plan, but there is little awareness of it, will never garner political support, and would be torn to shreds if it ever gained public knowledge. Too bad, because we are heading for unimaginable chaos and tragedy. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/degrowth-the-vision-we-must-demand
Was struck by your "will never garner political support." Yes, degrowth is mostly in just ideas. If ideas are simply sent out into the world (here and other places), little will change. Action and organizing have to get behind ideas for there to be change. Skepticism is always advisable, but I'd argue against allowing that to slip into fatalism.
I'm all for degrowth. It should be on the table NOW. We are running out of time, and stuck on the idea renewables can maintain our profligate lifestyle. Yes, action is essential. If we're to get there, it's going to have to be a bottom up demand. Moneyed interests would only be motivated to fight the idea, as it demands and requires reasonably equitable wealth distribution. You're right, I'm a realist. If I was a complete fatalist, I wouldn't have written an article explaining the basic ideas of degrowth. Sorry if I upset you.
"Will never garner political support" is a tricky one. As our politics is currently constituted, no it won't. But as more people realize that we are going to have degrowth by "choice or catastrophe" as Peter Victor says, then they will search for ways to choose "choice". But most people don't know what that means, or what that looks like. That's a large part of why I am writing this, to get these ideas out there to a broader audience.
I'm a little uncertain about what the definition of degrowth is. I'm assuming that it means reduced consumption of resources and consumer goods and a reduction in population over time lowering the growth rate.
I've been preaching that for years now. At this juncture in time reduction in consumption is the only way to slow climate change if at all possible. Unfortunately our society has been programmed and controlled into believing that more is better and that is not going to realistically change in time. We do not have the technology currently to change to a reliable "green energy" society. Hawaii is currently 50% "green energy" and has the highest electric rates in the country. The main problem is backup storage for when solar and wind are not generating. It's being fluffed over and ignored. The entire electric grid is going to have to be restructured as well.
What amazes me most is the fact that electrical engineers haven't brought up these facts. It's nowhere to be seen on the internet. Because it's not politically correct?
My guess/opinion is that the catastrophe is going to occur in the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe less. In 20 years I have not been able to convince one person of the necessity of reduced consumption.
Keep writing. I'm not trying to dissuade you. Maybe you can start something. If not people are going to find out the hard way.
Thanks for your support Toma. You are not wrong.
I link your site on mine if you like. Let me know if there's an article that you would like a direct link to. It's the only way to gather support.
Best regards
That would be great thanks. Whatever you think is a best fit.
I haven't read through many yet. If you have a description of degrowth that would probably be best. Otherwise I'll have a quick look and pick one. You've done a great deal or writing. Take a look at what I wrote on consumerism.
988America substack
Here is degrowth 101. https://degrowthistheanswer.substack.com/p/degrowth-101
Start with that and then pick other ones you think are useful.
I live outside a small college town in the US and that sounds about right. Although I loved living in NY when I did for 12 years and never owned a car and walked and took the subway most everywhere.
I remember reading suggestions over the years about the ideal size for an urban community as being perhaps 50k in population? Maybe in an area that encourages walking for most errands and bikes or e-bikes for longer trips. Linking such communities with public rail transit would go along way to change lifestyles and change our environment.
_Degrowth_ to date is mostly ideas. Yet, it already has an opportunity to engage in the real world of action and politics. Population projections ( https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demography ) suggest that global population will peak in 2180 and begin a slow decline. This process is already happening in several richer industrial nations, namely Japan and South Korea. Ethno-nationalists and business elites in those nations are turning attention to the so-called "fertility-rate crisis." Early solutions they propose include incentivizing women to return to earlier marriages and roles as mothers in the household. So far, these "solutions" appear to be failing. Degrowth advocates need to bring forth their alternatives. Can South Korea and Japan transition to an economy that meets real human needs at a lower GDP? Certainly, that can be imagined. The challenge is to make it real.
Degrowth is a sane plan, but there is little awareness of it, will never garner political support, and would be torn to shreds if it ever gained public knowledge. Too bad, because we are heading for unimaginable chaos and tragedy. https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/degrowth-the-vision-we-must-demand
Was struck by your "will never garner political support." Yes, degrowth is mostly in just ideas. If ideas are simply sent out into the world (here and other places), little will change. Action and organizing have to get behind ideas for there to be change. Skepticism is always advisable, but I'd argue against allowing that to slip into fatalism.
I'm all for degrowth. It should be on the table NOW. We are running out of time, and stuck on the idea renewables can maintain our profligate lifestyle. Yes, action is essential. If we're to get there, it's going to have to be a bottom up demand. Moneyed interests would only be motivated to fight the idea, as it demands and requires reasonably equitable wealth distribution. You're right, I'm a realist. If I was a complete fatalist, I wouldn't have written an article explaining the basic ideas of degrowth. Sorry if I upset you.
We are pretty close in our assessments, I am guessing. I just saw your July 2023 piece today. Will read it with interest.
I hope you like the article and look forward to your thoughts.