There are many important and progressive ideas in all of these approaches. But none of them address the magnitude of degrowth needed to achieve a steady-state economy, nor the urgency in achieving this goal. At least a 70 to 80% reduction in our ecological footprint is required to allow the biosphere to regain the massive loss of biomass we have destroyed over the past few centuries (approx half of the total global biomass since the 1700's). None of the proposed degrowth approaches clarify such a target, nor do they propose degrowth scenarios that come close to achieving such a goal in the next couple of decades, before irreversible ecological tipping points occur. Degrowth is the answer, but we need a clear target to develop appropriate strategies. The required actions will be very disruptive, and unless we are prepared to embrace the necessary disruption, we won't get there on time.
Agreed Jack. I just wanted to point out that this is where the degrowth discussion is evolving currently. Progress is nowhere neer fast enough, but when folks from big international consulting firms start talking about degrowth out loud, it is best to engage them. They feel either safe to talk about this in public or believe they finally have to. The more we make these ideas normal, the faster we can go.
Yes, this is our big challenge, isn't it. Understanding the magnitude and urgency of reduction needed is too scary and disruptive. But being scared and disrupted is necessary to take appropriate action. Yes, engage anyone willing to explore these issues; they are all part of the change ecosystem. But there are already many willing to make big changes but have little space to connect and share ideas and plans. We can be more honest with them.
I'm glad to see that people are noticing this! We need all of the above, and it's hard to choose just one (I just chose my "favorite"). Also, I understand that Mother Nature has some rather strong views on some these subjects, so maybe she could contribute to the discussion somehow.
If we had a government that was progressive, the state influence could be meaningful. Since it is corrupt and ineffective, we must work with what we have, at the local level. As Paulo Freire learned from the people he worked with, “We Make the Road by Walking.”
I can’t answer your survey because there are two “flavors” that invoke institutions as change agents.
Both use “institution” to mean political institutions and the force of law.
Neither identifies Finance as an institution.
None of the ‘flavors” identifies institutional corruption (by which I mean of failure of authority to align with agency, institutionally, and not the corruption of actors within an institution exercising the powers of the institution for personal gain) as the cause of the Growth problem or the rectification of that corruption as the path to its correction.
So, I am introducing a 5th Flavor: Degrowth through rectification of Finance.
Specifically, by moving Pensions & Endowments out of Asset Ownership where they are financing Corporate Power through the financial mathematics of Exit by Sale, to extract profits from volatility and growth in market clearing prices for securities, in the markets for maintaining volatility and growth in market clearing prices for such securities, and into Prudent Stewardship financing Sufficiency to their own Longevity, through Enter through Amortization for equity payback to an actuarial or fiduciary cost of money, plus opportunistic upside, for cash flows flowing through businesses that are prioritized by contract for:
- Suitability of the technology to the times
- Duration of the social contract with popular choice, over time; and,
- Dignity in how the business does business, all the time, across all six vectors of cash flow through business
- Dignity in Trading, with suppliers
- Dignity in Engaging, with communities, of place and of interest;
- Dignity in Reckoning, with the consequences, for Nature, for Society and for our share Future;
- Dignity in Working, in the workplace
- Dignity in Dealing, in the marketplace
- Dignity in Sharing, with the savers whose savings are transformed into capital by financiers, fiduciary and otherwise
Thanks for this. This topic relates to this new paper as well: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2026.2668252
Thanks Max. I will check that out.
There are many important and progressive ideas in all of these approaches. But none of them address the magnitude of degrowth needed to achieve a steady-state economy, nor the urgency in achieving this goal. At least a 70 to 80% reduction in our ecological footprint is required to allow the biosphere to regain the massive loss of biomass we have destroyed over the past few centuries (approx half of the total global biomass since the 1700's). None of the proposed degrowth approaches clarify such a target, nor do they propose degrowth scenarios that come close to achieving such a goal in the next couple of decades, before irreversible ecological tipping points occur. Degrowth is the answer, but we need a clear target to develop appropriate strategies. The required actions will be very disruptive, and unless we are prepared to embrace the necessary disruption, we won't get there on time.
Agreed Jack. I just wanted to point out that this is where the degrowth discussion is evolving currently. Progress is nowhere neer fast enough, but when folks from big international consulting firms start talking about degrowth out loud, it is best to engage them. They feel either safe to talk about this in public or believe they finally have to. The more we make these ideas normal, the faster we can go.
Yes, this is our big challenge, isn't it. Understanding the magnitude and urgency of reduction needed is too scary and disruptive. But being scared and disrupted is necessary to take appropriate action. Yes, engage anyone willing to explore these issues; they are all part of the change ecosystem. But there are already many willing to make big changes but have little space to connect and share ideas and plans. We can be more honest with them.
Agreed.
I'm glad to see that people are noticing this! We need all of the above, and it's hard to choose just one (I just chose my "favorite"). Also, I understand that Mother Nature has some rather strong views on some these subjects, so maybe she could contribute to the discussion somehow.
If we had a government that was progressive, the state influence could be meaningful. Since it is corrupt and ineffective, we must work with what we have, at the local level. As Paulo Freire learned from the people he worked with, “We Make the Road by Walking.”
I can’t answer your survey because there are two “flavors” that invoke institutions as change agents.
Both use “institution” to mean political institutions and the force of law.
Neither identifies Finance as an institution.
None of the ‘flavors” identifies institutional corruption (by which I mean of failure of authority to align with agency, institutionally, and not the corruption of actors within an institution exercising the powers of the institution for personal gain) as the cause of the Growth problem or the rectification of that corruption as the path to its correction.
So, I am introducing a 5th Flavor: Degrowth through rectification of Finance.
Specifically, by moving Pensions & Endowments out of Asset Ownership where they are financing Corporate Power through the financial mathematics of Exit by Sale, to extract profits from volatility and growth in market clearing prices for securities, in the markets for maintaining volatility and growth in market clearing prices for such securities, and into Prudent Stewardship financing Sufficiency to their own Longevity, through Enter through Amortization for equity payback to an actuarial or fiduciary cost of money, plus opportunistic upside, for cash flows flowing through businesses that are prioritized by contract for:
- Suitability of the technology to the times
- Duration of the social contract with popular choice, over time; and,
- Dignity in how the business does business, all the time, across all six vectors of cash flow through business
- Dignity in Trading, with suppliers
- Dignity in Engaging, with communities, of place and of interest;
- Dignity in Reckoning, with the consequences, for Nature, for Society and for our share Future;
- Dignity in Working, in the workplace
- Dignity in Dealing, in the marketplace
- Dignity in Sharing, with the savers whose savings are transformed into capital by financiers, fiduciary and otherwise