I get where you are coming from, and no doubt many will frame this as austerity.
I am arguing for reframing how to look at our wants and needs. Take the beef example. You can still have all the hamburgers you want, but society as a whole won't if we agree as a society that we shouldn't eat beef at this level.
If we say, "this isn't working, let's change it" - yes, things will change. We seeing something as "austerity" means to that person "I have to have this, and it is being taken away." But you don't need a hamburger. It is a want.
Our needs as a society can largely be taken care of. Satisfying all of our wants, even when it is destroying us, isn't healthy. You can call stopping that austerity, but the assumption behind that is that all of our wants are really our needs.
They aren't.
This is a large and long culture change for people, but in the end it gets down to - "want less - you will be happier." This isn't some hippy commune crap, but based on the science of what makes people happy and fulfilled. Overconsumption isn't it - but we are still on that path. Let's step off it. It won't happen in one day, but can over time.
Over time that won't be seen as austerity, but as, our society doesn't do things that way anymore.
Good job communicating the basics of degrowth without overwhelming people. The concept is also dependent on raising incomes in the global south and reducing them in the global north. This is highly dependent on dismantling billionaire wealth. The ideas of degrowth are sound. The political and behavioral impediments, however, are profound. Even progressives don't talk about degrowth. For any chance at all, Trump and Project 2025 must be stopped in November.
When the blinkers are off and clarity unfolds, it's so, so simple … ‘Degrowth asks “what is necessary” for a society rather than “what is profitable” or “what brings growth” to an economy.’
Once you understand you are left newly bewildered why the media fights so hard against this way of organinzing society.
Great stuff Matt- At Degrowth Aotearoa New Zealand (DANZ), we have been trying to get Degrowth into mainstream institutional discourse. Our work has included holding public debates pitting green growth against Degrowth, publishing articles in NZ news media, and organising an NZ version of the EU Beyond Growth conference, at which Timothee Parrique, Nate Hagens, and Erin Remblance guested. Most recently, our Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment acknowledged us. See: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7213698926061793280/
Very nice. I appreciate and agree with many aspects of this presentation.
At the same time, I remain concerned that this type of presentation — through over-promising — can do as much to hurt the credibility of degrowth advocacy, with critical thinkers, as the hit-pieces by people who don't understand/acknowledge the ecological constraints that require degrowth approaches.
The biggest one I see, in this post, is that (of course!), in the current context, #degrowth must mean societal austerity (not government austerity, but deep, prolonged societal austerity).
I think that any critical thinker reading this will realize that, and become untrusting of the message, and/or the intelligence behind it.
If we want to effectively represent and advocate for degrowth as the only rational option — which it is — I think we must acknowledge that it will certainly mean some forms of societal austerity.
There may be ways we can actually improve lives and society through a degrowth path... but some luxuries and pleasures will be lost... and — if we're to be as honest as we should — there are also going to be losses, and we cannot yet foresee how severe some of the hardships might be...
What we CAN say — based on the need to radically cut fossil fuel uses in order to mitigate global heating (to try to avoid runaway global heating) — and based on humanity's current state of extreme ecological overshoot — is that failure to adopt rapid, radical degrowth pathways would yield outcomes that are likely to be far worse.
But what is austerity? Austerity is telling people "we are going to take something away from you." I understand that people can look at degrowth that way, but I don't. To me, I would say "look, this isn't working, let's do this differently." For example I could say. We should eat less beef as a society. We can do that by choice, by raising taxes on beef, by removing subsidies, but we should as a society eat less beef because it is extremely damaging to the environment. Taking all beef away would be austerity. Educating people on the destruction of nature that beef production involves coupled with policy choices may achieve the positive outcome of less beef production. I understand that some people will call that austerity, but I disagree. Beef would still be available. But it would cost more.
Look at what happened with smoking in the United States. Education about smoking and high taxes and less subsidies caused a drop in smoking among men of about 27% since 1990 and about 37% in women from 1990 (I just looked it up). That wasn't austerity - but you have far less smoking now.
I could oversimplify this by saying "don't want things that are destroying you." Those could be taken away through austerity, or phased our or phased down - not austerity, but society through education, policy making better choices. It is of course not that simple, but that is how I see degrowth's role - taking a path to better outcomes. Governments can try austerity - but it won't work without letting people know why changes are being made, getting buy in (but you can't make everyone happy) and having policies that do the job.
EVERY NATION that ever got through shortages as tight as human civilization now faces did it by RATIONING — EQUITABLE rationing.
Market approaches DON'T WORK.
--
It wasn't just education that made people stop smoking — it was laws that made smoking VERY INCONVENIENT. And people still smoke; many "non-smokers" now vape, which is worse.
There are reasons we have laws for things that are harmful to society.
--
We aren't going to meaningfully mitigate the horrors of uncontrolled collapse, let alone on the time-scales necessary, without 'manning up' and doing what responsible leaders and societies have always done — reigning in commerce-as-usual, in favour of equitably rationing essential supplies and services.
Yes! The embedded and largely unacknowledged true costs of choices like beef/meat, sugar empty calories, processed food choices, etc have huge downstream consequences that can show up as ill health, early death, compromised lifestyles, family dysfunction. Moderation is key here. Education and tax incentives are key and what first comes to mind. Regenerative agriculture, encouraging more local small farm solutions could be a big employer and put more energetic young people on the land.
Actually it’s just about being honest about what leads to health for us and the planetary biosphere.
Hi Matt... The mainstream media serves the economic apparatus which itself is killing the entire planet. How can we expect such institutions to speak of any change, dare even utter Degrowth as a possibility. Plus, across the global south, in nations like India, if you speak of degrowth, most people might smile and walk away and a few may laugh... Why? Is because those have nothing, cannot possibly degrow any further.
I get where you are coming from, and no doubt many will frame this as austerity.
I am arguing for reframing how to look at our wants and needs. Take the beef example. You can still have all the hamburgers you want, but society as a whole won't if we agree as a society that we shouldn't eat beef at this level.
If we say, "this isn't working, let's change it" - yes, things will change. We seeing something as "austerity" means to that person "I have to have this, and it is being taken away." But you don't need a hamburger. It is a want.
Our needs as a society can largely be taken care of. Satisfying all of our wants, even when it is destroying us, isn't healthy. You can call stopping that austerity, but the assumption behind that is that all of our wants are really our needs.
They aren't.
This is a large and long culture change for people, but in the end it gets down to - "want less - you will be happier." This isn't some hippy commune crap, but based on the science of what makes people happy and fulfilled. Overconsumption isn't it - but we are still on that path. Let's step off it. It won't happen in one day, but can over time.
Over time that won't be seen as austerity, but as, our society doesn't do things that way anymore.
Good job communicating the basics of degrowth without overwhelming people. The concept is also dependent on raising incomes in the global south and reducing them in the global north. This is highly dependent on dismantling billionaire wealth. The ideas of degrowth are sound. The political and behavioral impediments, however, are profound. Even progressives don't talk about degrowth. For any chance at all, Trump and Project 2025 must be stopped in November.
When the blinkers are off and clarity unfolds, it's so, so simple … ‘Degrowth asks “what is necessary” for a society rather than “what is profitable” or “what brings growth” to an economy.’
Once you understand you are left newly bewildered why the media fights so hard against this way of organinzing society.
Great stuff Matt- At Degrowth Aotearoa New Zealand (DANZ), we have been trying to get Degrowth into mainstream institutional discourse. Our work has included holding public debates pitting green growth against Degrowth, publishing articles in NZ news media, and organising an NZ version of the EU Beyond Growth conference, at which Timothee Parrique, Nate Hagens, and Erin Remblance guested. Most recently, our Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment acknowledged us. See: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7213698926061793280/
Thanks for this definition.
Very nice. I appreciate and agree with many aspects of this presentation.
At the same time, I remain concerned that this type of presentation — through over-promising — can do as much to hurt the credibility of degrowth advocacy, with critical thinkers, as the hit-pieces by people who don't understand/acknowledge the ecological constraints that require degrowth approaches.
The biggest one I see, in this post, is that (of course!), in the current context, #degrowth must mean societal austerity (not government austerity, but deep, prolonged societal austerity).
I think that any critical thinker reading this will realize that, and become untrusting of the message, and/or the intelligence behind it.
If we want to effectively represent and advocate for degrowth as the only rational option — which it is — I think we must acknowledge that it will certainly mean some forms of societal austerity.
There may be ways we can actually improve lives and society through a degrowth path... but some luxuries and pleasures will be lost... and — if we're to be as honest as we should — there are also going to be losses, and we cannot yet foresee how severe some of the hardships might be...
What we CAN say — based on the need to radically cut fossil fuel uses in order to mitigate global heating (to try to avoid runaway global heating) — and based on humanity's current state of extreme ecological overshoot — is that failure to adopt rapid, radical degrowth pathways would yield outcomes that are likely to be far worse.
But what is austerity? Austerity is telling people "we are going to take something away from you." I understand that people can look at degrowth that way, but I don't. To me, I would say "look, this isn't working, let's do this differently." For example I could say. We should eat less beef as a society. We can do that by choice, by raising taxes on beef, by removing subsidies, but we should as a society eat less beef because it is extremely damaging to the environment. Taking all beef away would be austerity. Educating people on the destruction of nature that beef production involves coupled with policy choices may achieve the positive outcome of less beef production. I understand that some people will call that austerity, but I disagree. Beef would still be available. But it would cost more.
Look at what happened with smoking in the United States. Education about smoking and high taxes and less subsidies caused a drop in smoking among men of about 27% since 1990 and about 37% in women from 1990 (I just looked it up). That wasn't austerity - but you have far less smoking now.
I could oversimplify this by saying "don't want things that are destroying you." Those could be taken away through austerity, or phased our or phased down - not austerity, but society through education, policy making better choices. It is of course not that simple, but that is how I see degrowth's role - taking a path to better outcomes. Governments can try austerity - but it won't work without letting people know why changes are being made, getting buy in (but you can't make everyone happy) and having policies that do the job.
Voluntary approaches DON'T WORK!
EVERY NATION that ever got through shortages as tight as human civilization now faces did it by RATIONING — EQUITABLE rationing.
Market approaches DON'T WORK.
--
It wasn't just education that made people stop smoking — it was laws that made smoking VERY INCONVENIENT. And people still smoke; many "non-smokers" now vape, which is worse.
There are reasons we have laws for things that are harmful to society.
--
We aren't going to meaningfully mitigate the horrors of uncontrolled collapse, let alone on the time-scales necessary, without 'manning up' and doing what responsible leaders and societies have always done — reigning in commerce-as-usual, in favour of equitably rationing essential supplies and services.
Any other idea is a FANTASY.
--
Yes! The embedded and largely unacknowledged true costs of choices like beef/meat, sugar empty calories, processed food choices, etc have huge downstream consequences that can show up as ill health, early death, compromised lifestyles, family dysfunction. Moderation is key here. Education and tax incentives are key and what first comes to mind. Regenerative agriculture, encouraging more local small farm solutions could be a big employer and put more energetic young people on the land.
Actually it’s just about being honest about what leads to health for us and the planetary biosphere.
Super overview, thank you!
Hi Matt... The mainstream media serves the economic apparatus which itself is killing the entire planet. How can we expect such institutions to speak of any change, dare even utter Degrowth as a possibility. Plus, across the global south, in nations like India, if you speak of degrowth, most people might smile and walk away and a few may laugh... Why? Is because those have nothing, cannot possibly degrow any further.
That is what I’ll be talking about on Monday. I don’t expect the mainstream media to talk much about degrowth. You can get your information elsewhere.