couple of comments: 1. it is not just the wealthiest 10% whose level of consumption is a problem; to operate at a sustainable steady state, we need to reduce energy and material throughput by about 80%. That's going to involve just about everyone, everywhere, albeit to varying degrees. 2. a steady state economy (as defined by ecological economics) is a dynamic equilibrium that involves a relatively constant level of sustainable material throughput (i.e. within biophysical limits), and population. So it is not simply no more GDP grow, but a reduction of throughput to sustainable levels (hence the need for an 80% decline). 3. in a steady state economy the amount of materials consumed and turned to waste must decline significantly, but the quality of life can continue to improve. One of the crimes of the current system is that we focus on the wrong reinforcers (profit, income, stuff, status, etc). To make life better we need to focus on the things that provide genuine life satisfaction ( meeting basic needs for everyone, meaningful role and voice in community, time with friends and family, leisure time). Degrowth is more than the absence of austerity; its about new sources of joy and satisfaction.
Right now, 'life' as a whole seems to be based on consuming. 'Success' and 'society' are both totally involved with what we look like and the material products we have; 'ownership'. Happiness, wellbeing and stability come from internal satisfaction. Time for a healthier education system as well as less dependence on material goods!!
Degrowth is socially just, austerity is socially unjust. Degrowth redirects production from what increases wealth and luxury for the few at the expense of the many having their basic needs met to production that prioritizes everyone getting what what they need first. Degrowth means less private jets, luxury yachts, cruise ships, and SUVs and more public transportation and more equitably distributed housing, food, etc. Accepting anything less than degrowth is fatal insanity.
One of the most important lessons learned by Allied governments during the "home efforts" of World War 2 is that, to be effective, societal austerity must be equitable. Rationing must be equitable. Distribution of hardships must be equitable.
Societal austerity can and must be socially just.
That said, societal austerity should not be confused with government austerity.
Done well, societal austerity involves robust, expanded government support programs.
Government austerity leaves people to their own unequal devices, and is inevitably unjust.
Really great! DeGrowth writers struggle with the frame of imposed austerity. The anthropology that you invite to separate the two works well. Thanks for writing 👍
As you say, "Those in the bottom 10% of the income scale feel austerity. Those in the top 10% don’t. Those in the bottom 10% benefit from degrowth." However, I disagree with the last sentence there, "Those in the top 10% don’t." Actually, the only way for the planet to survive is by degrowth so - EVERYBODY benefits from degrowth!! And those in the top 10% are potentially easier to educate! So that would be our next task. spread the word to the top 10% that degrowth need not be a scary word. In fact it's the way to save us from the downward spiral of 'over-production, overconsumption, pollution of and degradation of the natural world that is going to destroy our civilization if we continue down our current path.'
I had more written until my cat deleted it. No, it is just a terrible name for reasons you give at the outset. It sounds like austerity, devolving, immaturity. I don't like the name steady-state economy either for similar reasons. I have not decided on circular economy. However, I support the intent behind these things. I'm more amenable to names like sustainable prosperity or sustainable sufficiency economics - the term I coined.
And when I say sustainable, I do not mean monetarily/financially, I mean in the broad ecological sense, social sense and all the other senses too.
And I agree, for some it will feel like austerity/less but for most it will feel like more and it is my belief that it will even take democracy closer to the democratic ideal.
Just listening to 'the news' on UK BBC Radio 6 - (can't do ' the news', just the headlines on the music channel). ...."Sir Keir Starmer......speaking of an economic and societal black hole. He is asking the country to accept short term pain for the long-term good" He mentioned a '£22 billion gap........' He didn't mention that that gap could be filled by 22 of our nation's billionaires giving just one billion each. They would hardly notice the difference (and could make it up pretty quickly by continuing to play Monopoly, the way they do) and - the people down on the ground (who voted Sir K into power) would see him as a hero instead of the guy who told lies and is now showing himself to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution!!
I have always hated the term degrowth. Defining a movement in the negative is less useful than defining it in the positive.
The goal as I understand it is for humanity to enter and adult phase of growth… for us to reach a condition of homeostasis, natural balances that keep keep growth in check, while allowing people and communities to come to full bloom.
I understand that term has caught on and has a life of its own now, but I wish there was a better word to describe the movement that told a positive story. A word that invited people in.
A word that would make this article impossible to write.
The appeal of the word degrowth is that it is incorruptible. Look at the word, sustainable, or sustainability. Many companies call themselves sustainable, or their products sustainable, when they are not. It has taken a decade or more for regulation to catch up with this practice and start holding companies accountable, and even then, penalties are next to nothing. Not many companies are going to call themselves "degrowth". That said, I'm fine using other words. Language changes and evolves. But swapping out degrowth for a more consumer friendly word would be self-defeating in my opinion.
Hmm. From a state of extreme ecological overshoot in a closed, finite system (which is where we are) societal austerity is the only alternative to uncontrolled catastrophic collapse. If we'd begun 70 years ago, perhaps we could have transitioned without deep societal austerity, rationing (hopefully equitable), and so on.
Yes — ideally we can survive... and arrive at, and then have the wisdom to stay at, a sustainable steady-state society, in which everyone has fruitful lives, with little or no sense of unhealthy hardship.
But I think it is clear — from what we know of the nature's limits, and what we know of real-world events, today — that getting to a sustainable steady-state global society means a transition through hardships and societal austerity (not to be confused with government austerity).
Losses of luxury will be felt most by people with the most luxuries, but societal austerity will be felt by everyone: for example, while most people in developed countries must use radically less energy and material resources, people in ALL countries must accept reduced reproductive rates, if the goal is to avoid societal collapse and loss of essential advancements.
Right now, what we need is the wisdom to go through a (decades long) period of hardship, to get to that future of sustainability that supports fruitful lives for all.
If that's the case, I think it is a serious strategic mistake to suggest that the transition can be made without hardship — it sets up shock and reactionary resistance.
BS-ing people with absurd optimism is a disservice.
couple of comments: 1. it is not just the wealthiest 10% whose level of consumption is a problem; to operate at a sustainable steady state, we need to reduce energy and material throughput by about 80%. That's going to involve just about everyone, everywhere, albeit to varying degrees. 2. a steady state economy (as defined by ecological economics) is a dynamic equilibrium that involves a relatively constant level of sustainable material throughput (i.e. within biophysical limits), and population. So it is not simply no more GDP grow, but a reduction of throughput to sustainable levels (hence the need for an 80% decline). 3. in a steady state economy the amount of materials consumed and turned to waste must decline significantly, but the quality of life can continue to improve. One of the crimes of the current system is that we focus on the wrong reinforcers (profit, income, stuff, status, etc). To make life better we need to focus on the things that provide genuine life satisfaction ( meeting basic needs for everyone, meaningful role and voice in community, time with friends and family, leisure time). Degrowth is more than the absence of austerity; its about new sources of joy and satisfaction.
Right now, 'life' as a whole seems to be based on consuming. 'Success' and 'society' are both totally involved with what we look like and the material products we have; 'ownership'. Happiness, wellbeing and stability come from internal satisfaction. Time for a healthier education system as well as less dependence on material goods!!
Changed it.
Degrowth is socially just, austerity is socially unjust. Degrowth redirects production from what increases wealth and luxury for the few at the expense of the many having their basic needs met to production that prioritizes everyone getting what what they need first. Degrowth means less private jets, luxury yachts, cruise ships, and SUVs and more public transportation and more equitably distributed housing, food, etc. Accepting anything less than degrowth is fatal insanity.
One of the most important lessons learned by Allied governments during the "home efforts" of World War 2 is that, to be effective, societal austerity must be equitable. Rationing must be equitable. Distribution of hardships must be equitable.
Societal austerity can and must be socially just.
That said, societal austerity should not be confused with government austerity.
Done well, societal austerity involves robust, expanded government support programs.
Government austerity leaves people to their own unequal devices, and is inevitably unjust.
Really great! DeGrowth writers struggle with the frame of imposed austerity. The anthropology that you invite to separate the two works well. Thanks for writing 👍
As you say, "Those in the bottom 10% of the income scale feel austerity. Those in the top 10% don’t. Those in the bottom 10% benefit from degrowth." However, I disagree with the last sentence there, "Those in the top 10% don’t." Actually, the only way for the planet to survive is by degrowth so - EVERYBODY benefits from degrowth!! And those in the top 10% are potentially easier to educate! So that would be our next task. spread the word to the top 10% that degrowth need not be a scary word. In fact it's the way to save us from the downward spiral of 'over-production, overconsumption, pollution of and degradation of the natural world that is going to destroy our civilization if we continue down our current path.'
You are right. I’ll go back and change it to reflect that … but it won’t sound as cool. :)
You were right to change it, Matt, but as a writer I agree the modified sentence doesn't have the same cool double punch. 😉
Well put! And simply stated! And beautiful!
I had more written until my cat deleted it. No, it is just a terrible name for reasons you give at the outset. It sounds like austerity, devolving, immaturity. I don't like the name steady-state economy either for similar reasons. I have not decided on circular economy. However, I support the intent behind these things. I'm more amenable to names like sustainable prosperity or sustainable sufficiency economics - the term I coined.
And when I say sustainable, I do not mean monetarily/financially, I mean in the broad ecological sense, social sense and all the other senses too.
And I agree, for some it will feel like austerity/less but for most it will feel like more and it is my belief that it will even take democracy closer to the democratic ideal.
Just listening to 'the news' on UK BBC Radio 6 - (can't do ' the news', just the headlines on the music channel). ...."Sir Keir Starmer......speaking of an economic and societal black hole. He is asking the country to accept short term pain for the long-term good" He mentioned a '£22 billion gap........' He didn't mention that that gap could be filled by 22 of our nation's billionaires giving just one billion each. They would hardly notice the difference (and could make it up pretty quickly by continuing to play Monopoly, the way they do) and - the people down on the ground (who voted Sir K into power) would see him as a hero instead of the guy who told lies and is now showing himself to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution!!
I have always hated the term degrowth. Defining a movement in the negative is less useful than defining it in the positive.
The goal as I understand it is for humanity to enter and adult phase of growth… for us to reach a condition of homeostasis, natural balances that keep keep growth in check, while allowing people and communities to come to full bloom.
I understand that term has caught on and has a life of its own now, but I wish there was a better word to describe the movement that told a positive story. A word that invited people in.
A word that would make this article impossible to write.
The appeal of the word degrowth is that it is incorruptible. Look at the word, sustainable, or sustainability. Many companies call themselves sustainable, or their products sustainable, when they are not. It has taken a decade or more for regulation to catch up with this practice and start holding companies accountable, and even then, penalties are next to nothing. Not many companies are going to call themselves "degrowth". That said, I'm fine using other words. Language changes and evolves. But swapping out degrowth for a more consumer friendly word would be self-defeating in my opinion.
Hmm. From a state of extreme ecological overshoot in a closed, finite system (which is where we are) societal austerity is the only alternative to uncontrolled catastrophic collapse. If we'd begun 70 years ago, perhaps we could have transitioned without deep societal austerity, rationing (hopefully equitable), and so on.
Yes — ideally we can survive... and arrive at, and then have the wisdom to stay at, a sustainable steady-state society, in which everyone has fruitful lives, with little or no sense of unhealthy hardship.
But I think it is clear — from what we know of the nature's limits, and what we know of real-world events, today — that getting to a sustainable steady-state global society means a transition through hardships and societal austerity (not to be confused with government austerity).
Losses of luxury will be felt most by people with the most luxuries, but societal austerity will be felt by everyone: for example, while most people in developed countries must use radically less energy and material resources, people in ALL countries must accept reduced reproductive rates, if the goal is to avoid societal collapse and loss of essential advancements.
Right now, what we need is the wisdom to go through a (decades long) period of hardship, to get to that future of sustainability that supports fruitful lives for all.
If that's the case, I think it is a serious strategic mistake to suggest that the transition can be made without hardship — it sets up shock and reactionary resistance.
BS-ing people with absurd optimism is a disservice.