"degrowth" is one of those things you don't actually need to believe in, the world will do it for us if we don't do it first. I just want to minimize the collateral damage.

If folks refuse, so be it, I did my ethical duty in making sure they were well informed.

> "degrowth" is one of those things you don't actually need to believe in, the world will do it for us if we don't do it first. I just want to minimize the collateral damage.

Worked in OT a long time, an old saying is that you either schedule downtime to perform maintenance or the hardware will gladly do that for you.

It's the same with climate, we either suck the cost of rearranging how we live now or we are going to hit a wall with the foot still down on the gas, expecting constant growth.

Ok, try a different lens.

"Optimise" is never a neutral verb, we always optimise /for/.

Growth-above-all capitalists observe, correctly, the correlation between economic output and human wellbeing, and assume, incorrectly, a relationship that is both purely and directly causal and straight-up linear.

What if we optimise for human wellbeing and build a society that works less like a Prescott Pentium 4 and more like an iPhone? Figure out what really matters and then set about doing more with less.

(Answers that will be uncomfortably socialist for some - public-ish goods being more efficient in many cases than private everything, and uncomfortably technocratic for others, but tough...)

Because doing more with more is running out of runway. And in this game, you can't just declare bankruptcy and start again. There's no second chances here.

They’re in the passenger seat holding a gun on everyone’s head. We are fucked either way

the word "degrowth" isn't mentioned once in this interview fwiw. it's actually a rational take on resiliency in the face of an uncertain future, built upon the realities of biological change and history.

“De-growth”, like communism, is perfectly logical until you start talking about implementation. Then it starts sounding like A Modest Proposal. Who has to sacrifice? Who isn’t allowed to build, or have kids, or use specific technology? I have this funny suspicion it would end up being poor people

And who ends up paying in a world that doesn't get its act together on sustainability? Hell, who's paying right now? Who's had their country invaded or their political system up-ended to keep cheap oil and cheap goods flowing to the West?

I'm not saying degrowthers have all the answers, but any critique should be weighed even-handedly against a realistic view of the shortcomings of what we have now and where it's taking us.

Seriously. Poor people in Mexico and India are frying in their homes right now while monkeys drop out of trees.

When I think “de-growth”, one of the first things I think of is China’s One-Child Policy.

1. How does the OCP “stop” colonialism?

2. If what you mean by “changing the perspective on good and desirable” is restricting who can have children and who can’t, then obviously people are going to be upset with you?

Ok, then we don't have the same definition of de-growth. China is very much growth oriented, although in a different way than the collective West. 2. I think that has more to do with eugenics than degrowth, degrowth is asking how many children is desirable, if you want 10 children, first you need to think about women and how desirable it is for them to be pregnant for 7-8 years of their lives, going through labor 10 times etc... Especially if 9 of those 10 children will live till 70, what good are you achieving there? World domination with your genes? XD Asking people to not have kids sounds pretty undesirable and anti-democratic too, but it the desirability of it should be debated publicly for sure. Also would you have 10 kids in a world where abundance is not a given? Where it's hard to afford a nanny, or even find one, etc...