I havent had a chance to read these articles yet (thanks for identifying them, Matt). A note of caution - especially from mainstream sources - beware the "degrowth lite" approach. This is when someone understands that we have to reduce demands on nature, but assumes it wont be that difficult because we are so clever (i.e. a disguised green growth approach). One has to have some sense of the magnitude of reduction in material throughput required to eliminate ecological overshoot before one can consider appropriate responses.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that, no, degrowth is not being talked about seriously in any proportion that matters (not by a very long shot), and also that we neither will nor even can adopt it without everything falling apart.
I havent had a chance to read these articles yet (thanks for identifying them, Matt). A note of caution - especially from mainstream sources - beware the "degrowth lite" approach. This is when someone understands that we have to reduce demands on nature, but assumes it wont be that difficult because we are so clever (i.e. a disguised green growth approach). One has to have some sense of the magnitude of reduction in material throughput required to eliminate ecological overshoot before one can consider appropriate responses.
The NYT article is from 2021, it seems.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that, no, degrowth is not being talked about seriously in any proportion that matters (not by a very long shot), and also that we neither will nor even can adopt it without everything falling apart.
Tell Noah Smith, if he clutches his pearls any harder whenever he hears the D-word, he'll cramp up.