•

The Radical Plan to Save the Planet by Working Less: The degrowth movement wants to shrink the economy to address climate change, and create lives with less stuff, less work, and better well-being.

The Radical Plan to Save the Planet by Working Less

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bj9yjq/the-radical-plan-to-save-the-planet-by-working-less

The degrowth movement wants to intentionally shrink the economy to address climate change, and create lives with less stuff, less work, and better well-being. But is it a utopian fantasy?

71 comments

NocturnalMorning

•

It's not that radical, we lived with less than this for tens of thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

F04118F

•

This sounds nice for someone in a developed country who has all they need, and is only satisfying their wants. But for most of the world, economic development is a necessity and a lifesaver. Child mortality is reduced, life expectancy and education level increased, child labor decreased, as a country's economy grows. This is not a fringe right-wing idea. This is the very real effect of economic growth in developing countries, i.e. most of the world.

Degrowthers often seem to forget that applying their ideas will literally kill millions in developing countries, by preventing the economic developments that would have saved them.

FWIW, I am not a fan of unbridled capitalism either but think that it is important to consider science in important matters like this and not just go with gut feeling. That applies to both fascism and degrowth.

yimby

•

I think a more fair take is that we need growth in underdeveloped places and degrowth in highly developed places. It's less about changing the total economic output and more about changing how that output is distributed.

NocturnalMorning

•

No, it's about how much carbon we are putting I to the atmosphere. Pretty simple issue actually.

escapesamsara

•

Which is a direct function of development. All of Africa produces less CO2 than Alabama, and Alabama is the least developed state in the developed world.

Bartsbigbugbag

•

Degrowth addresses that, contrary to your opinion. Degrowth in the global north provides the space for the global south to properly develop, something that has been systematically denied to them in many places by western powers through unequal exchange and neocolonialism.

30mag

•

Permanently Deleted

Bartsbigbugbag

•

Lmao no but that’s a great mental image. Global north and south don’t exclusively refer to northern and southern hemisphere. Though, rewilding is a component of most degrowth strategies I’ve encountered. Obviously it’s much more complicated than just planting trees, entire ecosystems would need to be developed, but I guess sort of in a way it would be like moving the Amazon to the northern hemisphere, only that degrowth would advocate for redeveloping underdeveloped areas in the global south rather than further damaging wild ecosystems to develop more sprawl.

Edit: by space I meant in terms of emissions, development costs to land, etc. currently we’re already exploiting most of these countries resources, and destroying their ecosystems, through the aforementioned unequal exchange and neocolonialism, but under de growth, these regions would instead be able to exploit their own resources for their development, instead of being harangued into exporting raw goods by the global north for our oversized consumption habits.

30mag

•

Permanently Deleted

gowan

•

Permanently Deleted

Bartsbigbugbag

•

Sure, so I imagine you’re also of the opinion that Texas should not be allowed to develop any more, that they must refuse any new immigrants from other states, and all Texans must move to other states, right?

Given what we know about climate change, I imagine you must feel the same way about the majority of the southern US, which indeed will itself become uninhabitable.

gowan

•

Permanently Deleted

Bartsbigbugbag

•

I feel that, it will be interesting to see how the global climate refugee crisis will go when western countries like the US start having millions of migrants internally as well as externally. I think it’s going to be crazy, so much of the west is already bigoted against refugees overall, will they turn that inward and create a class of undesirables who live in shanty towns? Will the state step up and spend the billions of dollars it requires to properly create places for all these people? It’s gonna be a crazy few decades.

gowan

•

Permanently Deleted

teddy-bonkerz

•

It seems like the choice is to die from the environmental issues or die from poor health care? There is no way anyone survives with the current state of things.

BarrelAgedBoredom

•

Its often includes with a more holistic approach to restructuring society. Degrowth is only a part of the puzzle a lot of radicals are advocating for in order to combat climate change. A lot of proponents of degrowth also call for a solarpunk style of city planning, decentralized/libertarian (real libertarian) politics and plenty more

centof

•

The article is, in my opinion, purposely mischaracterizing the degrowth movement. I would say degrowth is more a natural reaction to the excesses of capitalism than movement about addressing climate change.

doom_and_gloom

•

I'm a pretty big degrowth advocate and I approach it first from a climate change standpoint, however capitalism is clearly the primary driver behind climate change, so I rarely see the point in making a distinction. But I'm happy to coordinate with those who approach it primarily from an economic standpoint, too.

kugel7c

•

Isn't the former very naturally part of the latter though ? And doesn't the article also raise that point as well? Fundamentally it's an idea that often gets interpreted through both those lenses because it could help with both conflicts, which is also what by definition is it's purposely trying to accomplish, the first explicitly and the second is implicit in

... within planetary boundaries.

This connection I think should be embraced because climate change is more attractive as a topic to most people than critiques of capitalism but obviously one leads naturally into the other. Saying that degrowth aims to address climate change is more just a description of partial content rather than a mischaracterization and the body of the article tries reasonably to explain other parts as well, less work and better well being are right there in the title, both not a dishonest description of other parts of the philosophy.

After all no one that accepts degrowth as a concept would answer the question "Should we degrow to combat climate change ?" with a "No" All answers would be "yes and ..." or "yes but ..."

At the end of the day Vice writing will never be perfect but nowadays for genpop media outlets it tries much harder than most to paint an honest picture of the world, and calling this article a mischaracterization seems to me a little harsh, if you've never heard of it the article certainly could honestly teach and spark interest for a this "new" way of thinking, and you need just one word to google to get more rigorous explanation if you wanted it.

nobleshift

•

You don't need to wait, you can start this now on your own. Is it easy? F*ck no. Can it be done? Yes, and once you are used to it, it's a great way to live.

FaeDrifter

•

Hell yes it's a great way to live.

If we implement government policies that incentivize simple living, and tax wasteful living exponentially, it's going to benefit individuals.

Wealthy people will be better off from having most of their wealth taxed because they'll have a more enjoyable simple lifestyle.

iHUNTcriminals

•

For real. It's the same with food.

Not that I eat healthy... Because I'm practically underweight so I'll generally eat anything. But after eating organic for awhile in the past I definitely favor fresh healthy over junk food. Regular Americanized food just tastes fake to me.

Same with my room/home... It's so much easier when you only have less to take care of.

doom_and_gloom

•

And you'll be a better person for it. There's nothing like putting theory into practice. Even if you don't make a difference to anyone else, you'll make a difference for yourself.

Project_Straylight

•

Protip: if you want your movement to gain any political traction, don't call it the degrowth movement

BarrelAgedBoredom

•

What would you call it? Its kinda like the "defund police" thing. If they called it "reallocate police resources" opposition to the movement would just use the stronger "defund police" language as a cudgel to smear it. It's best to own it and educate

Project_Straylight

•

How about 'fix the police'? Less stupid, much harder to smear

BarrelAgedBoredom

•

Fix the police? Why are you insinuating our courageous public servants need to be fixed? These heroes go out everyday and put their lives in danger to keep society safe! How dare you!

moriquende

•

why? it's exactly what it is.

Project_Straylight

•

Because the average person is too dumb

hglman

•

Do tells us what smooth PR term to use.

MNByChoice

•

Economic resilience

Project_Straylight

•

I always used 'durable economy'

SoupyHappenstance

•

For political reasons.

chicken

•

In order to slow the economy down and not wreak havoc, he said, we have to reconfigure our ideas about the entire economic system.

This is how degrowthers envision the process: After a reduction in material and energy consumption, which will constrict the economy, there should also be a redistribution of existing wealth, and a transition from a materialistic society to one in which the values are based on simpler lifestyles and unpaid work and activities.

Sounds good to me. It is a fair point that the basic operation of our society depends on continual growth, but redistribution seems like it would be an effective way of mitigating those problems degrowth might cause. We have more than enough resources to keep everyone alive, we just have to use them.

PowerCrazy

•

I'd rather just do the full communism now path, where once every man, woman and child has all their needs and many of their wants met, there isn't a desire to chase the next fashion craze, or buy the next iphone or "keep up with the jones'" as it were because the Jones' have the same stuff you do, but maybe they spend their ample leisure time exercising, you spend your time gardening.

phoenixz

•

The only way that will work is if you have a violent dictatorship. Welcome Stalin back basically.

I see more future in putting laws in place that severely limits what companies can do. Companies cannot grow beyond 1000 people. Tax any wealth thing heavily. Tax negatively for the poor, tax a little for those with a little and more for those that are better off. Taxes go up and up once you are richer and Once your income and or networth reaches a certain level, tax 100%.

Institute 3-4 work day weeks

Institute universal income

Out extreme limits on advertising and marketing. Those two are the real evils of mankind.

Require news outlets be paid for by the government and be required to be neutral and factual

With changes like that we can remain a (serverely limited) capitalist system that pays for the very nice social system below that doesn't focus in money anymore

PowerCrazy

•

Laws will be written with loopholes. Just nationalize industry run them for the public rather the for profit and fire the CEOs/Lobbyists and PMC's that keep Capitalism operating.

Also I'll take a Stalin for the initial break from Capitalism. After 10ish years, we can go to a more democratic government.

DogMuffins

•

there should also be a redistribution of existing wealth

there should also be unicorns farting rainbows.

phoenixz

•

Yeah, good luck with that. Won't happen. Do you really believe that the 1% will give up it's riches? Do you really believe that the politicians, you know, the guys with money, will decide on redistribution?

Good luck.

chicken

•

the politicians, you know, the guys with money

There is overlap, but ultimately it's not a monolith. Anyone can be a politician and politicians succeed or fail on people voting for them. What are the rich gonna do with ownership of all the land and all the companies and all the resources anyway? Effectively enslave everybody? Wait for us to starve so they can keep playing number-go-up in secure enclaves while the world burns around them?

You mention universal income in another comment. If you do it right, that's redistribution. You give people the means to keep living, every other problem gets less intense. I think there's a good chance that when things get bad enough, even hardcore capitalists will go for it because it's a way for capitalism to continue existing in a form that isn't a dead useless husk. IMO a much better option than pulling for a civil war hoping the result will be a socialist utopia and not just evil warlords doing evil warlord stuff.

Kirkkh

•

Permanently Deleted

lemmie689

•

"Turn on, tune in, drop out" 2.0

Wogi

•

I'm doing my part.

Marxist_Bear

•

Yes, we'll save ourselves by resetting the clock and never undoing the conditions that led to where we are

paddirn

•

B-B-B-But then multi-billionaires might have to settle for a few billion less!!! How will they survive?

doom_and_gloom

•

That's one heck of an... accurate headline.

o_d

•

Degrowth is such a fucking stupid idea. What we need is socialism. The demonic oligarchs that run the world are never going to prioritize reducing climate change. They've made that clear over the last century. There's too much profit to be made.

Worker owned means of production is the only solution. Only then can we direct the productive forces toward solving the most immediate problems that humanity faces. We've created so much productivity, but we need to guide it in the direction of sustainability instead of the profit motive.

pedalmore

•

You're conflating two very different things. You can have an equitable system of worker owned coops that still has a growth mindset and destroys the ecosystem. You don't magically become sustainable when socialism becomes a thing. Growth itself when we're bound by the resources of a single planet a problem, period.

o_d

•

China seems to be achieving this just fine and without the worker coop part even.

possiblylinux127

•

That also means massive unemployment

stembolts

•

Look around you. Are there things to be done? Parks to be cleaned? Old houses to be renovated? Run down areas of town? Are there any hungry children in nearby schools? If you answered yes to any of those, then there is work to be done.

Why, if there is work to be done, is it not getting done? What type of society undervalues such critical work such that you would look at the state of the work and think that there is not enough work for everyone to contribute.

There are plenty of jobs, there is infinite work, but the current value system doesn't incentivise this work that would improve everyone's life.

So two questions.

Why doesn't the current system value this work?
What would the world look like of that type of work was valued?

That in mind, given that you assume mass unemployment, which is questionable at best, reconsider why that would be. Who, or what, would be the cause?

AnAngryAlpaca

•

There are a lot of BS jobs that don't create any value (real estate agents, advertising, ...) and a lot of work that is not getting done because nobody would pay for it, for example cleaning up the environment, worker shortage in hospitals and elder care.

PowerCrazy

•

That's actually a good thing, assuming that employment wasn't tied to surviving nor thriving.

Aux

•

Good idea! Let's just replace workers with robots straight away and they can live work free!

thisisawayoflife

•

I'm all about it. I've got my Corvette and just had the clutch replaced so I'm all about *downsizing for others now!

Aux

•

I'll downsize as well once I get my Bugatti and a private race track. Or two.

JohnDClay

•

How would business work? Currently a business's purpose by law is to make money. How would you enforce a different goal without going full centralized economy?

And how is trying to add less value more effective than internalizing externalized costs? For example, co2 is an externalized cost, one companies don't need to pay for right now, it's external to them. If we made them pay for it to fund carbon capture at 1 ton removed for every 1 ton emitted, they would decrease their emissions and the rest would be removed. You could do something similar for other ecological issues as well. What's the benefit of degroth over internalizing costs?

hoodatninja

•

Permanently Deleted

JohnDClay

•

I was confusing an obligation to shareholders with an obligation to profit. So if a share holder majority want maximized profit, I think the company needs to do it.

hoodatninja

•

Permanently Deleted

JohnDClay

•

But the shareholders can replace members who are not acting what they perceive to be their best interest, right? It seems like eventually the company will conform to what the share holders want.

It seems like if a CEO publicly said they were shrinking the company to benefit the environment, they'd be replaced by the shareholders pretty quickly.

hoodatninja

•

But the shareholders can replace members who are not acting what they perceive to be their best interest, right?

Yes but you make it sound like they're ordering a sandwich. Removing a CEO is a big deal and can have huge repercussions. You need to make sure the reasons are good enough, and "we didn't make quite as much money" is not enough to move most boards.

It seems like if a CEO publicly said they were shrinking the company to benefit the environment, they’d be replaced by the shareholders pretty quickly.

That completely depends on the company and how they're doing it.

iHUNTcriminals

•

Easy, just get society to treat those people for what they are... Greedy selfish inhumane criminals. I mean they usually share the same tactics as criminals so it's not even a joke. Treat em for what they are... Life rapists.

Treat em like they got rabies.

It's our duty as human beings.

Chetzemoka

•

"In 2014, the United States Supreme Court voiced its position in no uncertain terms. In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”.

https://legislate.ai/blog/does-the-law-require-public-companies-to-maximise-shareholder-value

BigMcLargeHuge

•

@Chetzemoka @inasaba @JohnDClay

The issue isn't law. It's base greed.

JohnDClay

•

Hmm interesting. Thank you!

They do have an obligation to what their share holders want though don't they?

witten

•

Maybe part of degrowth would be fewer public companies beholden to shareholders.

JohnDClay

•

Private companies are still beholden to their owners. Would the alternative be government ownership?

TheaoneAndOnly27

•

Co-op structures could work too.

JohnDClay

•

In co-ops the employees have a controlling interest, right? So a majority of them would still need to want to shrink the company. That might be easier to convince them than investors though.

TheaoneAndOnly27

•

True, it would still need to be based off the cooperative ideas. There was an awesome forestry co-op in the 70-90's called the Hoedad's that had an interesting model and had each section ran as separate crews with even different pay structures and even philosophical structures. They did tree replanting and brush cutting and many other activities but each sub group bid contacts independently but we're part of the workers cooperative collectively.

Chetzemoka

•

If the shareholders want the corporation to blatantly violate the law, they don't do that. They don't have to do everything that shareholders want. Shareholders are perfectly free to sell their shares, if they don't like what a company is doing, or to vote out members of the board, if they don't like the way the company is being managed. The idea that corporations have no other choice is a myth perpetuated to maintain the status quo

anewbeginning

•

And the extra poverty and misery this will cause?

PapaStevesy

•

Rich people missing out on more profits is not the same thing as poverty.

JohnDClay

•

But the people controlling the company would rather cut the people at the bottom than their own salaries. If a company shrinks, it's usually the people at the bottom who feel it the most.

BarrelAgedBoredom

•

If there was less profit in general from reduced consumption then billionaires would suffer anyway. Degrowth doesn't exist in a vacuum and it's part of a broader movement to combat climate change and increase equity. This is very much a left wing concept that has plenty of criticisms about, and solutions to the problems you're raising

polskilumalo

•

But the people controlling the company would rather cut the people at the bottom than their own salaries.

Then the people at the bottom could get to cutting some heads.

penguin

•

Eh, humans are hardwired to acquire stuff. This will never catch on. It'd be cool if it did. But it won't.

_errer

•

It won’t happen because the ones interested in keeping us convinced we’re hardwired to acquire stuff would not want it, and they’re the ones in control.

Ascetics exist. Minimalists exist. Fuck, Marie Kondo exists. The desire for stuff is not some immutable force like gravity. It’s just what we’ve been taught by the ones selling the stuff.

0x1C3B00DA

•

I disagree that we're hardwired to acquire stuff. But even if we are, we're sentient beings who overcome a lot of things we're hardwired to do, so that is just one more thing we should be aware of about our own thinking.

Rozauhtuno

•

Eh, humans are hardwired to acquire stuff

[Citation needed]

z3rOR0ne

•

Humans are hard wired to take care of each other. You're mistaking human nature with materialism.

But hey, do you doomer.

Rev3rze

•

Humans are also hardwired to be adaptable and survive in many many circumstances. Materialism is one such circumstance. If this movement gains momentum and the world actually changes because of it humans will adapt again and survive.

The problem is that survival in these circumstances seems to depend on the continuation of it for all those in it, which leads to heavy resistance to changing the circumstances we've adapted to. It requires us to look beyond what we know and work towards the greater good with little guarantee that this will work out for ourselves individually within our own lives even if we know it'll be good for everybody in the long term. Therefore, it goes against that innate survival instinct.

I truly believe that the only way out of this dumpster fire of a world we live in depends on changing those "fundamentals" (big word, seeing how materialism is relatively recent to mankind and is only fundamental as long as the majority believes it is and keeps the charade going) but in the short term it means going against the instinct to persevere and stay in the rat race, because stepping out of the race to live by new rules while the rest is undecided or flat out decides to simply keep running is going to set you back within the confines of the "old rules".

TeryVeneno

•

Macroeconomics student moment

iByteABit

•

This belongs in a capitalist propaganda bingo card

ParsnipWitch

•

Materialism could also in part be the result of a lack in other areas that humans are hardwired for. Community, emotional care, daydreaming, ...

polskilumalo

•

Human nature is sculpted and shaped by the material conditions around you, it's not something immutable and forever the same.

If a society is built around endless accumulation then of course it would be considered only natural to most.

After all, if you were born and lived your whole life in a coal mine, you'd say it's human nature to cough.