Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

In these days of shortages, mass extinctions, global warming, and climate change, there are those who see our tightly-focussed insistence on (economic) growth — continuous growth — to be somewhat misguided. As our consumption has increased to a point where it outweighs available resources, isn't it empirically obvious that growth can't continue without end?

Degrowth is a new idea to me, but it does seem to make pragmatic sense, in today's world, or what is left of it. For those who (like me) are not very familiar with the concept, here's a link to the Wikipedia page.

And here's a very brief excerpt,

Degrowth theory's main argument is that an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to the finiteness of material resources on Earth. Degrowth theory argues that economic growth measured by GDP should be abandoned as a policy objective.

What are your thoughts? [Philosophically-political thoughts, of course.] Is degrowth a fantasy, or our only alternative?

[gad-fly]

Your quote from wikipedia can be misleading, even as a main argument. You can find more relevant info on the internet:

"a policy of reducing levels of production and consumption within an economy in order to conserve natural resources and minimize environmental damage."
"debates regarding the appropriate response to the ecological crisis revolve around the viability of green growth versus the necessity of degrowth"
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

More definitions, origin and scrabble points

Shrinking rather than growing economies
Degrowth is a radical economic theory born in the 1970s. It broadly means shrinking rather than growing economies, to use less of the world’s dwindling resources.

I believe that ecoconomic growth is basically linked to population shift and desire for betterment. Say your country's poppulation increases by 10%, and your country's economic should grow by 10%, On the other hand, if you want your chiddren to be more well off than you, you may ask for 10% economic growth even if the population remains the same. This is all common sense. You can, of course, not care less. After you are gone, why should you care? Perhaps the best outcome: Grow, and grow more,while you are still alive.

Still, many of us would like to play Holier Than Thou.

Lastly, green gorwth is gorwth, no less, except for the colour.

[Sy Borg]

I doubt that any nation would deliberately reduce their growth, given the highly competitive nature of global politics, especially when there's eight billion people at a time when the US hegemony is breaking down. Crush loading with high immigration numbers to boost GDP is a short term solution that benefits those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. It's not uncommon for GDP to increase as GDP per capita reduces.

In the end, degrowth will happen naturally. A "hard landing" lies ahead for humanity. Hopefully AI will help, although many think it will hinder.

[gad-fly]

I doubt that any nation would deliberately reduce their growth, given the highly competitive nature of global politics, especially when there's eight billion people at a time when the US hegemony is breaking down. Crush loading with high immigration numbers to boost GDP is a short term solution that benefits those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. It's not uncommon for GDP to increase as GDP per capita reduces.

In the end, degrowth will happen naturally. A "hard landing" lies ahead for humanity. Hopefully AI will help, although many think it will hinder.

The term 'degrowth' applies to a policy theory or a phenomenon. The former is leftist and radical, more on idealistic than practical ground. Like anti-poverty, it usually focusses on the benevolvent side than on the price to be paid. The latter is, as Sy Borg has said, unlikely to be attained in the near future. It is "fine, but not in my backyard".

Having said that, I would like to point out that it is more comfortable to talk about degrowth in England than in Nigeria with population explosion. I cannot imagine what will happen in Nigeria if its economy remains the same, let alone smaller, in twenty years' time. The least to happen is for England to be flooded with illegal economic immigrants. Blame it on "degrowth will happen naturally".

[Lagayascienza]

I don't think "degrowth" would be acceptable or necessary. However, I do think it's a shame we can't have a better sort of economic growth - one that doesn't rely on trashing the joint. It is clear that there are physical limits to human expansion on earth. How many people can we squeeze into every square meter and still leave room to grow enough food? How much stuff can we dug up before it's all dug up? It's nice to imagine a stable situation in which we keep our population no higher than it is and produce enough for everyone while leaving enough of nature alone to support healthy ecosystems that in turn keep physical systems like the climate stable. If that were achieved, would there be any need for further growth in GDP? Why not just produce enough. However, I suspect that enough would never be enough and it would never be reasonably distributed. And, as Sy Borg notes, when human competitiveness and politics is thrown into the mix, along with the magical thinking that still grips the minds of so much of humanity, anything as benign as stable, peaceful, plentitude is unlikely to eventuate. So a hard landing may be all we have to look forward to.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your quote from wikipedia can be misleading, even as a main argument. You can find more relevant info on the internet:

"a policy of reducing levels of production and consumption within an economy in order to conserve natural resources and minimize environmental damage."
"debates regarding the appropriate response to the ecological crisis revolve around the viability of green growth versus the necessity of degrowth"
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

First, thanks for taking the trouble to comment.

As I said in my OP, the Wikipedia article is just a starting point, and the quote I offered was very brief, as I noted. You're right that there seems to be a lot more to degrowth than those few words.

Degrowth is a radical economic theory born in the 1970s. It broadly means shrinking rather than growing economies, to use less of the world’s dwindling resources.

Yes, that seems to be about right.

I believe that economic growth is basically linked to population shift and desire for betterment. Say your country's population increases by 10%, and your country's economic should grow by 10%, On the other hand, if you want your children to be more well off than you, you may ask for 10% economic growth even if the population remains the same. This is all common sense.

"Common sense"? Or just the way we've always behaved? Whenever we have wanted more, we have simply taken more, without thought of the consequences.

You can, of course, not care less. After you are gone, why should you care?

Because I'm part of something bigger than just myself? Because my species could continue after my death, if we weren't trying so hard to bring it to an end. That's what this topic is about — considering our way forward, into the future.

Still, many of us would like to play Holier Than Thou.

Yes, some of us indulge in such pastimes. But I hope such thinking plays no part in this topic...?

[Pattern-chaser]

In the end, degrowth will happen naturally. A "hard landing" lies ahead for humanity.

Yes. This topic asks us to wonder if we might get ahead of the game here, to cushion our landing, which will otherwise be hard, as you observe. Is there a rational and practical approach to degrowth? If there is, is it desirable? Desirable for who or what?

[Pattern-chaser]

The least to happen is for England to be flooded with illegal economic immigrants.

...or just "flooded"? There have been few droughts here, so far, but we have plenty of floods. Especially on the flood plains, where we authorised the building of new houses.

Degrowth is one possible approach to the eco-problems we already face. If it isn't degrowth, it must be something else. So should it be degrowth, or are there promising and practical alternatives?

[Count Lucanor]

In these days of shortages, mass extinctions, global warming, and climate change, there are those who see our tightly-focussed insistence on (economic) growth — continuous growth — to be somewhat misguided. As our consumption has increased to a point where it outweighs available resources, isn't it empirically obvious that growth can't continue without end?

Degrowth is a new idea to me, but it does seem to make pragmatic sense, in today's world, or what is left of it. For those who (like me) are not very familiar with the concept,

And here's a very brief excerpt,

Degrowth theory's main argument is that an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to the finiteness of material resources on Earth. Degrowth theory argues that economic growth measured by GDP should be abandoned as a policy objective.

What are your thoughts? [Philosophically-political thoughts, of course.] Is degrowth a fantasy, or our only alternative?

In general terms, I have to agree with the implicit and explicit criticism of the type or society promoted as the world system of modern capitalism. I agree that productivism, economicism and all ideologies that focus primarily on indefinite income and profit growth, and which measure social success in terms of GDP, while advocating for consumption for consumption’s sake and production for production’s sake, as a way of helping capital accumulation, are to be replaced with other conceptions of human development centered around people’s needs at the top of the Maslow pyramid (to make the point simple). This seems to me compatible with a socialist movement at a global scale, seeking to transform and eventually replace the current capitalist world-system. This means that any degrowth movement will only be successful if, and only if, it doesn’t promote isolated initiatives at a local scale as government economic policy, without addressing all the other social issues involved, both locally and globally. Surely that looks as a big, complicated effort, given the way global politics is configured right now, even as the voices signaling that capitalism seems to be in its death rattles, are growing. In the end, it all boils down to Rosa Luxemburg’s and István Mészáros’ thesis: socialism or barbarism.

[gad-fly]

Confine ourselves to focus on the issue before it gets out of range.

First, 'degrowth' is on the size of the economy, but not on GDP. Say, you had one mouth earning $X to subsist. Now you have two months. Degrowth means that you will still earn $X. Fair? Most, based on common sense, would say that your subsistence earning should be $2X. Some would go outside the box. Blame it on the increease of mouth from one to two. Problem solved.

Seocnd, degrowth is an outdated policy theory from more than 50 years. Needless to say, it is a poison pill in poltical advocacy and campaign. It is a blink in the eye of one who has juat felt a pain in the ass. "What if . . .?" Put degrowth into context, and you will find yourself surrounded by many more concerning issues, like gender equality, wealth distribution, and so on.

Third, will Degrowth take place naturally? Of course it would, no less than growth, depression, recession and bloom. Indeed, there is a century, perhaps the 13th, when degrowth lasted. Japan is one example.

[Pattern-chaser]

Confine ourselves to focus on the issue before it gets out of range.

I think this issue has about the widest range of any that humanity has ever faced. I don't think getting "out of range" is really a problem here?

First, 'degrowth' is on the size of the economy, but not on GDP. Say, you had one mouth earning $X to subsist. Now you have two months. Degrowth means that you will still earn $X. Fair? Most, based on common sense, would say that your subsistence earning should be $2X. Some would go outside the box. Blame it on the increase of mouth from one to two. Problem solved.

I think we might have gone beyond the real-world point where we can indulge in fairness, and similar human foibles. Continuous-growth cannot continue indefinitely, when resources (of all kinds/types) are finite and limited. This is beyond human concepts like fairness. Some alternative is necessary.

Also, I think degrowth is not just a political idea, and must surely apply to human numbers too*, which is what you are considering here, I think?



* — N.B. I'm not advocating eugenics, euthanasia or mass executions, but only observing that our numbers need to fall from their present level.

[gad-fly]

Confine ourselves to focus on the issue before it gets out of range.

I think this issue has about the widest range of any that humanity has ever faced. I don't think getting "out of range" is really a problem here?

First, 'degrowth' is on the size of the economy, but not on GDP. Say, you had one mouth earning $X to subsist. Now you have two months. Degrowth means that you will still earn $X. Fair? Most, based on common sense, would say that your subsistence earning should be $2X. Some would go outside the box. Blame it on the increase of mouth from one to two. Problem solved.

I think we might have gone beyond the real-world point where we can indulge in fairness, and similar human foibles. Continuous-growth cannot continue indefinitely, when resources (of all kinds/types) are finite and limited. This is beyond human concepts like fairness. Some alternative is necessary.

Also, I think degrowth is not just a political idea, and must surely apply to human numbers too*, which is what you are considering here, I think?



* — N.B. I'm not advocating eugenics, euthanasia or mass executions, but only observing that our numbers need to fall from their present level.

[gad-fly]

Confine ourselves to focus on the issue before it gets out of range.

I think this issue has about the widest range of any that humanity has ever faced. I don't think getting "out of range" is really a problem here?

First, 'degrowth' is on the size of the economy, but not on GDP. Say, you had one mouth earning $X to subsist. Now you have two months. Degrowth means that you will still earn $X. Fair? Most, based on common sense, would say that your subsistence earning should be $2X. Some would go outside the box. Blame it on the increase of mouth from one to two. Problem solved.

I think we might have gone beyond the real-world point where we can indulge in fairness, and similar human foibles. Continuous-growth cannot continue indefinitely, when resources (of all kinds/types) are finite and limited. This is beyond human concepts like fairness. Some alternative is necessary.

Also, I think degrowth is not just a political idea, and must surely apply to human numbers too*, which is what you are considering here, I think?



* — N.B. I'm not advocating eugenics, euthanasia or mass executions, but only observing that our numbers need to fall from their present level.

Degrowth as a term means "against gowth", not "no growth". Take your body. There is no growth after teenagerhood, but it does not degrow. Take a motor vehicle. Ease on the pedal. To deccelerate, step on the brake, equivalent to degrowth on speed.

As political theory beginning in the 1970's, degrowth is aginst growth in the economy, whether in the world, in G. B., or in Ngeria. Depending on the circumstances, what argument applying to one does not necessarily apply to another.

I take most advocating degrowth to refer to degrowth of the world economy, which is a tall order to influence, even from the United States. Why?

World population is projected to increase until the beginning of the next cenrtury. To advocate degrowth is translated to advocatng decine in average world living standard. Can I see any raised hand wanting to be poorer now? No, I am referring to you being poorer, not the one next to your raised hand.

The least that can be said: this is not yet the time to think about degrowth, like teach dietting to a famished kid.

Want to save the world? Fine. Want to sacrifice, fine too. But only gingerly.

[Pattern-chaser]

Degrowth as a term means "against growth", not "no growth". Take your body. There is no growth after teenagerhood, but it does not degrow. Take a motor vehicle. Ease on the pedal. To decelerate, step on the brake, equivalent to degrowth on speed.

I'm no expert. Degrowth is a new thing to me. But I have the impression that "degrowth" means reduction, or shrinkage. I think it refers to fewer humans consuming fewer resources, in brief. Is that not so?

Given the state of our environment, is degrowth even avoidable, now or very soon? If there were, say, 800,000,000 humans, instead of 8,000,000,000, and each of them consumed only 10% of what we each consume (on average) today, isn't that the sort of practical 'degrowth' that we need? And if we don't embrace it willingly, will we not be forced, by purely practical circumstances, to degrow anyway?

As political theory beginning in the 1970's, degrowth is aginst growth in the economy, whether in the world, in G. B., or in Ngeria. Depending on the circumstances, what argument applying to one does not necessarily apply to another.

Isn't this a global issue, not a national one? Isn't this a 'hit' we *all* must take?

I take most advocating degrowth to refer to degrowth of the world economy, which is a tall order to influence, even from the United States. Why?

For practical, environmental, reasons?

World population is projected to increase until the beginning of the next century. To advocate degrowth is translated to advocating decline in average world living standard. Can I see any raised hand wanting to be poorer now? No, I am referring to you being poorer, not the one next to your raised hand.

Hasn't this gone far beyond what we "want", and become what we must accept, whether we *want* to or not?

[LuckyR]

Degrowth as a term means "against growth", not "no growth". Take your body. There is no growth after teenagerhood, but it does not degrow. Take a motor vehicle. Ease on the pedal. To decelerate, step on the brake, equivalent to degrowth on speed.

I'm no expert. Degrowth is a new thing to me. But I have the impression that "degrowth" means reduction, or shrinkage. I think it refers to fewer humans consuming fewer resources, in brief. Is that not so?

Given the state of our environment, is degrowth even avoidable, now or very soon? If there were, say, 800,000,000 humans, instead of 8,000,000,000, and each of them consumed only 10% of what we each consume (on average) today, isn't that the sort of practical 'degrowth' that we need? And if we don't embrace it willingly, will we not be forced, by purely practical circumstances, to degrow anyway?

As political theory beginning in the 1970's, degrowth is aginst growth in the economy, whether in the world, in G. B., or in Ngeria. Depending on the circumstances, what argument applying to one does not necessarily apply to another.

Isn't this a global issue, not a national one? Isn't this a 'hit' we *all* must take?

I take most advocating degrowth to refer to degrowth of the world economy, which is a tall order to influence, even from the United States. Why?

For practical, environmental, reasons?

World population is projected to increase until the beginning of the next century. To advocate degrowth is translated to advocating decline in average world living standard. Can I see any raised hand wanting to be poorer now? No, I am referring to you being poorer, not the one next to your raised hand.

Hasn't this gone far beyond what we "want", and become what we must accept, whether we *want* to or not?

Yes. Keeping along current trends (that is: without intending to limit populations), current statistics predict a slowing of worldwide population growth until about 2100, followed by a precipitous drop.