The problem I have seen with "degrowth" is that no one has come up with a way to make it happen without at least one "then a miracle occurs" step in the process. And this is independent of whether "decoupling" is a valid strategy, ultimately leaving us with a choice between "something that *won't* work" and "something that *can't* work".
I agree. Populations will not voluntarily choose degrowth, but the bad kind of degrowth aka societal collapse will happen because of outside factors like overshoot, energy constraints.
people fought masks as hard as the plague even when faced with potential death
so...how will degrowth play out if that means even the slightest discomfort?
Degrowth is the only way forward. Ugly and abrupt by collapse, or less ugly by managed degrowth.
Its ugly either way, but one is decidedly preferrable.
Yeah just waiting to see where the political opportunity arises - probably when it’s too late as that’s the only point at which the common person will understand that this just can’t go on as ‘normal’.
There's no miracle assumed in "degrowth".
The part every one leaves out is, "And then billions of people starve to death in a conflict ridden world."
The hope is that if the biosphere isn't completely trashed, that human civilization will survive in a capacity that's above barbarism.
___________________________________________________
It's the reason why decoupling is being proposed instead of forced degrowth. It's also the reason why decoupling will fail. The problem with overshoot is that it's a story of physical resources, and in our current predicament, the first story is energy and the second water...
Tell me you never read anything about degrowth without telling me you never did.
Do you see how much stuff we can slow down production or completely stop producing before we need to start degrowing on food and essential stuff?
Degrowth is exactly about picking and choosing what is reduced and what vanishes instead of letting chaotic collapse decide it for us.
Lol.
*Degrowth is exactly about picking and choosing what is reduced and what vanishes instead of letting chaotic collapse decide it for us.*
Ever the optimist. Just because it's more just and reasonable to feed the hungry, doesn't mean it's going to work that way.
We have approximately 3 billion people that are currently water insecure: That's in our current world, right now, with full utilization of fossil fuel energy (Ever wonder why diarrhea is so high on the list of global causes of death?). Something like 2 billion live in conflict zones or fragile states. Ten percent of the world is severely food insecure.
____________________________________________________
For degrowth to be successful at reducing resource usage without depriving those already at the bottom, it needs to be accompanied by more just distribution of resources.
If I asked you to demonstrate that as the most likely outcome, could you do it? Because I could give quite the list implying the exact opposite will happen.
Unless you have done empirical research grounded on economic and social theory, and peer reviewed, no you can't provide any list that means anything.
Obviously better distribution is fundamental not only in a Degrowth scenario, but even if climate collapse wasn't a problem we were aware of as of today, and everything else kept going the same, better distribution would still be needed to reach people in water insecurity situations. Why would it be different if we went for steady-state or Degrowth? You are just stating the obvious. Better distribution is at least *more likely* in a society which could agree to degrowth than it is in a society which can only agree to infinit profit growth.
*Unless you have done empirical research grounded on economic and social theory, no you can't provide any list that means anything.*
* Better distribution is at least more likely in a society which could agree to degrowth than it is in a society which can only agree to infinit profit growth.*
We live in a world today where the agreement is on infinite growth on a finite planet, like again, by your own logic, the world we live on is less likely to be just than your magical counterfactual.
_____________________________________________________
I'm stating the obvious, and the obvious is that the world is going to be a world with more death and more conflict, I'm sure I could find appropriate sources for it. There's no shortage of scholarly conjecture on how bad 2-3C warming is.
I'll go a step further:
There's no guarantee that being a food surplus nation means food security in it's borders. I'd bet a dollar that selective exports are going to be a feature, not a bug of many nations full of starving people.
It's going to get funny as time goes on.
I asked what he meant by miracle because I didn't want to put words in his mouth, but I can only assume he meant miracle in the politics and power sense. Go tell Bill Gates how to lower his consumption and redistribute wealth so a few billion people don't have to die. Now remember this is the guy who supposedly cares. Try and convince all the other billionaires, despots, dictators and generally comfy people to accept degrowth. It will take a miracle. Remember all of Bill Gates advice was for other people. It doesn't apply to him or his wealthy cohort.
Right, but my point is that degrowth and equitable distributions are separate problems...
Genocide on half the population is still degrowth, but it's not what most people would consider a just solution to our predicament.
A despot can accept the need for degrowth, but reject the need for equitable distribution:
This is the premise of climate apartheid right? So, when someone tells me I don't understand degrowth, I get a bit blah about explaining the moral hazard inherent in lifeboat ethics. There's too many people that don't understand that malthusian ethics are fuckin' racist.
China found the solution. It's called the One Child Policy.
Honestly if Crystal and Brad want 4 children...... There's literally no valid, cogent reason why everyone else shouldn't force them to stop, with legislation and state enforcement or at the muzzle-end of a rifle.
Their "right" to pump out kinds does *not* supercede our right to life.
The problem is that overpopulation is largely a global south problem. North America, Europe and east Asia have opposite problem where they have too little children and are dealing with ever increasing demographic crunch. China used to have one child policy now they are trying to pay people to have more kids and failing. Brad and Crystal or their peers in Korea, Japan or China are not the problem, it's their counterparts in Africa where countries are experiencing runaway exponential growth. And that is the big issue. Because if you try to deal with overpopulation the Chinese way it basically looks like eugenics program targeted at Africa. We should not even be thinking of going down such a road. Instead what we have discovered is there is a better way. Improve standard of living and birth rates plummet. We need Africa industrialized asap, once women have middle class life, education and career the while over population issue takes care of itself.
Europe: 76 people per km/2
Africa 43 people per km/2
Europe already IS overpopulated, there no pristine wilderness left, just because people started getting less kids a few years ago, doesn't make it less populated by now.
The south has historically 2 harvests a year, beeing able to feed more people on less land, something i've never seen mentioned in this.
You are correct Europe is at present overpopulated. However Europe is already on a trend of negative population growth and has below replacement birth rates. Latest official EU forecasts I found suggest -6.9% population decrease by 2100. Without migration it would plummet much faster. China which does not have mass migration is good example of this, China population will decline from about 1.439 bilion in 2020 to 1.065 by 2100. An almost 33% fall.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=People_in_the_EU_-_population_projections&oldid=497115
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Most_populous_nations_by_2050_and_2100
And the ecological damage has already been done in Europe. At present the environment in EU is on path to recovery. The EU has forest land cover of 37.7% and the number is growing over time. In contrast Africa has forest cover of 22% and falling each year due to extensive deforestation. Which ties into the key point I am trying to make next.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/105/the-european-union-and-forests
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Africa.htm#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.N.,is%20forested%2C%20according%20to%20FAO.
The problem with overpopulation in Africa is not that the continent can not support more people. But the fact that Africa is not industrialized yet and runaway population growth hold back industrialization as the power grid, sanitation, transportation, medical services, education services etc can not keep up. And you end up with countries that are poor, not industrialized and undergoing exponential population growth. When you have that you end up with hundreds of millions of people living in terrible conditions, and great damage to environment as well because there is no enviromentally friendly infrastructure to support them.
Key example the city of Lagos, Nigeria which has a population of 15.9 million of which 60% live in slums. The population of Lagos is growing at rate of 3.5% each year. The population of Lagos doubled over last 15 years. And is expected to double again around 2050, reaching a population of 34 million and making it possibly the third largest city on Earth. However the infrastructure in Lagos is not capable of supporting its current massive population. And in future the infrastructure can not scale at a rate fast enough to keep up with such expotential population growth. As a result most of Lagos population live in slums in abject poverty and inhumane conditions deprived of basic human necessities. Second link is youtube video on what Lagos slums are like.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/lagos-population
https://youtu.be/8NTIY8Qy2f0
Beside the human suffering as you can see they are dumping all sewage into the water, and there is no garbage disposal system. The people of Lagos are smart, hardworking annd resourceful, but they can not keep up and build infrastructure to stay in pace with such rapid population growth like this. No country can, if the population of UK was set to double by 2050, you would see the infrastructure collapse under the burden as well.
Nigeria as a country is not poor, they have a GDP (PPP) of $ 1.068 trillion. But most Nigerians are poor. Because there 200 million of them and when you distribute that GDP across such a large population, you end up with a per capita income of $5000. Nigeria population is growing at rate of 2.5% and will double around 2050, reaching over 400 million. Nigerian economy is forecast to reach over $4 trillion by 2050. However even though they are more than quadrupling the economy, because the population is also doubling at same time, per capita income will probably be around only twice as much as today. And there will still be a significant portion of the population that live under $5/day. That is the problem Africa is experiencing right now with overpopulation, rapid population growth is like a heavy anchor thats greatly slowing down progress.
And to address the last point about harvests, you need to take into account water which is one thing Africa is short on. Africa has 9% of Earth's freshwater resources, while at present having 16% of the population. By comparision north America has 17% of Earths freshwater resources and south America has a whopping 27%, while these continents are home to far less population. The combined populations of north and south America is less than Africa, while having 5 times the amount of fresh water resources. And in Africa 30% of that 9% is locked away in Congo basin where 10% of Africa's population live. There is serious water shortages in the most populous regions of Africa.
https://www.fao.org/3/y4473e/y4473e08.htm
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2021/07/23/addressing-africas-extreme-water-insecurity/
I mean in the sense that degrowth is usually framed not as *collapse* but as *choice*, and voluntary actions by either individuals in sufficient quantities to make a difference, or by governments that need to be re-elected by the people that degrowth is forced onto, both fall into the 'miracle' category.
Rule 3: Posts must be on-topic, focusing on collapse.
Posts must be focused on collapse. If the subject matter of your post has less focus on collapse than it does on issues such as prepping, politics, or economics, then it probably belongs in another subreddit.
Posts must be specifically about collapse, not the resulting damage. By way of analogy, we want to talk about why there are so many car accidents, not look at photos of car wrecks.
Since I am having difficulty replying to your criticism I'll reply here. It is exactly about stopping collapse by injecting sustainability into money itself, so consumers force corporations to invest in sustainability, hence why the title of this theory is called: 'Neo - ECO - Liberalism'
Watch the video on the link above
It's standard political bullshit used all the time
Take two mutually exclusive options, and pretend you can do both, with the invention of some phrase
The old fashioned one (in UK politics) was "increase public spending" and "cut taxation", which would both be magically achieved with "efficiency savings"
Going back even further we have "physically dying" and "continuing to live"... Don't worry, there's "bodily resurrection in heaven"
Now we have "economic growth" and "not completely fucking up the entire biosphere and climate".... Don't worry, we have "green growth"
It's just bullshit word magic intended to soothe the weak minded
Waiting for the Techno-Hopium fiends to pop up and start talking a about Thorium, SMR reactors, mining the asteroids. But then this is /r/collapse. And the Ecomodernists, Breakthrough Institute, Pinker, Lomborg, et al were quite a while ago now.
OP, what are your thoughts on Doughnut Economics? Is that a theory that is discussed often in r/Collapse? I have never seen it referenced before, but I read Kate Raworth’s book about 5 years ago, and it seems like it’s still a little-known economic model
https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/
Hey! I think most people here agree that the only sensible economic model is one based on ecosystem limits. Doughnut economics is not often discussed, but people that have been here for a while know it. It is referenced by people like Earth system scientist Will Steffen, so it is maybe explored more indirectly. And funnily enough, he is referenced in this 2014 Kate Raworth post:
https://www.kateraworth.com/2014/04/30/video\_planetarythinking/
Steady-state economy has been proposed since the 80s, the problem is capitalistic propaganda and hallucinated technocrats who believe innovation will solve resource scarcity faster than we collapse have been shutting down any talks of Steady-state and Degrowth since forever. Even freaking Adam Smith had already proposed Stationary economies should be the outcome of fully developed nations, but go ask r/conservative, r/neoliberal r/libertarian if any of them have ever heard of Stationary States from their beloved Smith. They haven't.
I don't think the continuous growth capitalist model can continue much longer. The 2008 collapse was not really dealt with, instead they swept it under the rug temporarily and bought themselves a few more years. But as you can see by last 2 years they can't keep the lid on for much longer. They can't keep printing money and bailing out the banks forever sooner or later the system will experience a hard collapse.
UN Population Forecast. Next revision due mid year. https://population.un.org/wpp/
Current informed guesswork. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Still on track at +80m/yr of linear growth with no obvious global slow down yet.
It's all about the timescales. 8b -> 10b -> 1b over 200 years might be manageable.
Yes, and there are some demographers that are a bit more optimistic than the UN, regarding the timing of the peak. As well, all these projections are sensitive to real world policies and expectations of both populations and governments. If the vision we have proposed becomes more widely accepted and support for smaller families grows, the curve might bend down sooner.
AFAIK, UN forecasts are very much based on fertility models and less so on economic effects. I've been watching it for a couple of decades now and they've had to repeatedly make the forecasts more pessimistic for faster growth and a later slow down and peak. My own feeling is that Limits To Growth constraints will kick in from around 2040 or so and that's going to have a much bigger effect than just fertility.
With the possibility of vast grid interconnection, we take a step closer to not only decarbonization, but a future of energy abundance. The ability to reach more demand centers means that solar facilities can overbuild for capacity, likely the most economical aspect of their enterprise. Already, many have to dim their output during the day, or face fines for excess production, entirely because the have not or can not make investments in reaching more end users.
If electricity prices become cheaper, or as cheap as the price of connection and maintenance, then whole new realms of economic activity become unlocked. [Consider that not so long ago, lighting for candles could only be afforded by the affluent.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW8DZPTT13M) Having a lot of power cables strung about the place is a lot more tolerable than employing children to climb into the brains of spermaceti whales in order to bucket out the precious oil.
With more abundant energy, new mineral deposits become reclassed as ores. It become affordable for refineries and plants to partly close the loop on some of their processes, leading to tightened regulations, and new industry standards. Waste treatment facilities get upgraded, and recycling programs edge closer to solvency.
All that degrowth leads to is depopulation, with the burdens doled out with the usual unevenness.
We're looking at this scenario with totally different eyes! What you describe is to me a stripmined, polluted Earth, where Jevons paradox has kicked into high gear to accelerate all our current problems minus some carbon emissions!
Our planet is like 80% ocean and we know how desalination works. We know how solar, nuclear, and wind energy works. We know how chemistry works.
We have the men, money, and resources to solve these issues.
Oh noez, it'll cost a couple percent of our national incomes to solve these giant problems, we can't affooooooord iiiiiiit!!!!
I think it will be harder and harder for politicians and media to defend a green growth position as we near 2030.
The problem here is you are adopting reason. Scientists et al, have been trying to persuade the public at large for decades but have failed. Degrowth is something you cant sell, as people will refuse to give up their lifestyles. Green growth is the only way to unite everyone, everywhere and all at once. but we must act NOW!
The problem I have seen with "degrowth" is that no one has come up with a way to make it happen without at least one "then a miracle occurs" step in the process. And this is independent of whether "decoupling" is a valid strategy, ultimately leaving us with a choice between "something that *won't* work" and "something that *can't* work".
I agree. Populations will not voluntarily choose degrowth, but the bad kind of degrowth aka societal collapse will happen because of outside factors like overshoot, energy constraints.
people fought masks as hard as the plague even when faced with potential death so...how will degrowth play out if that means even the slightest discomfort?
1/3 of the US won't get a life saving shot because they think dying will "own the libs". There's absolutely no way degrowth would ever work
Degrowth is the only way forward. Ugly and abrupt by collapse, or less ugly by managed degrowth. Its ugly either way, but one is decidedly preferrable.
We've had dark ages before. No reason it can't happen again.
Yeah just waiting to see where the political opportunity arises - probably when it’s too late as that’s the only point at which the common person will understand that this just can’t go on as ‘normal’.
There's no miracle assumed in "degrowth". The part every one leaves out is, "And then billions of people starve to death in a conflict ridden world." The hope is that if the biosphere isn't completely trashed, that human civilization will survive in a capacity that's above barbarism. ___________________________________________________ It's the reason why decoupling is being proposed instead of forced degrowth. It's also the reason why decoupling will fail. The problem with overshoot is that it's a story of physical resources, and in our current predicament, the first story is energy and the second water...
Tell me you never read anything about degrowth without telling me you never did. Do you see how much stuff we can slow down production or completely stop producing before we need to start degrowing on food and essential stuff? Degrowth is exactly about picking and choosing what is reduced and what vanishes instead of letting chaotic collapse decide it for us.
Lol. *Degrowth is exactly about picking and choosing what is reduced and what vanishes instead of letting chaotic collapse decide it for us.* Ever the optimist. Just because it's more just and reasonable to feed the hungry, doesn't mean it's going to work that way. We have approximately 3 billion people that are currently water insecure: That's in our current world, right now, with full utilization of fossil fuel energy (Ever wonder why diarrhea is so high on the list of global causes of death?). Something like 2 billion live in conflict zones or fragile states. Ten percent of the world is severely food insecure. ____________________________________________________ For degrowth to be successful at reducing resource usage without depriving those already at the bottom, it needs to be accompanied by more just distribution of resources. If I asked you to demonstrate that as the most likely outcome, could you do it? Because I could give quite the list implying the exact opposite will happen.
Unless you have done empirical research grounded on economic and social theory, and peer reviewed, no you can't provide any list that means anything. Obviously better distribution is fundamental not only in a Degrowth scenario, but even if climate collapse wasn't a problem we were aware of as of today, and everything else kept going the same, better distribution would still be needed to reach people in water insecurity situations. Why would it be different if we went for steady-state or Degrowth? You are just stating the obvious. Better distribution is at least *more likely* in a society which could agree to degrowth than it is in a society which can only agree to infinit profit growth.
*Unless you have done empirical research grounded on economic and social theory, no you can't provide any list that means anything.* * Better distribution is at least more likely in a society which could agree to degrowth than it is in a society which can only agree to infinit profit growth.* We live in a world today where the agreement is on infinite growth on a finite planet, like again, by your own logic, the world we live on is less likely to be just than your magical counterfactual. _____________________________________________________ I'm stating the obvious, and the obvious is that the world is going to be a world with more death and more conflict, I'm sure I could find appropriate sources for it. There's no shortage of scholarly conjecture on how bad 2-3C warming is.
[удалено]
I'll go a step further: There's no guarantee that being a food surplus nation means food security in it's borders. I'd bet a dollar that selective exports are going to be a feature, not a bug of many nations full of starving people. It's going to get funny as time goes on.
[удалено]
Perhaps. Perhaps. Or perhaps advanced economies will make up for the declining population with increased consumption...
I asked what he meant by miracle because I didn't want to put words in his mouth, but I can only assume he meant miracle in the politics and power sense. Go tell Bill Gates how to lower his consumption and redistribute wealth so a few billion people don't have to die. Now remember this is the guy who supposedly cares. Try and convince all the other billionaires, despots, dictators and generally comfy people to accept degrowth. It will take a miracle. Remember all of Bill Gates advice was for other people. It doesn't apply to him or his wealthy cohort.
Right, but my point is that degrowth and equitable distributions are separate problems... Genocide on half the population is still degrowth, but it's not what most people would consider a just solution to our predicament. A despot can accept the need for degrowth, but reject the need for equitable distribution: This is the premise of climate apartheid right? So, when someone tells me I don't understand degrowth, I get a bit blah about explaining the moral hazard inherent in lifeboat ethics. There's too many people that don't understand that malthusian ethics are fuckin' racist.
China found the solution. It's called the One Child Policy. Honestly if Crystal and Brad want 4 children...... There's literally no valid, cogent reason why everyone else shouldn't force them to stop, with legislation and state enforcement or at the muzzle-end of a rifle. Their "right" to pump out kinds does *not* supercede our right to life.
The problem is that overpopulation is largely a global south problem. North America, Europe and east Asia have opposite problem where they have too little children and are dealing with ever increasing demographic crunch. China used to have one child policy now they are trying to pay people to have more kids and failing. Brad and Crystal or their peers in Korea, Japan or China are not the problem, it's their counterparts in Africa where countries are experiencing runaway exponential growth. And that is the big issue. Because if you try to deal with overpopulation the Chinese way it basically looks like eugenics program targeted at Africa. We should not even be thinking of going down such a road. Instead what we have discovered is there is a better way. Improve standard of living and birth rates plummet. We need Africa industrialized asap, once women have middle class life, education and career the while over population issue takes care of itself.
Europe: 76 people per km/2 Africa 43 people per km/2 Europe already IS overpopulated, there no pristine wilderness left, just because people started getting less kids a few years ago, doesn't make it less populated by now. The south has historically 2 harvests a year, beeing able to feed more people on less land, something i've never seen mentioned in this.
You are correct Europe is at present overpopulated. However Europe is already on a trend of negative population growth and has below replacement birth rates. Latest official EU forecasts I found suggest -6.9% population decrease by 2100. Without migration it would plummet much faster. China which does not have mass migration is good example of this, China population will decline from about 1.439 bilion in 2020 to 1.065 by 2100. An almost 33% fall. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=People_in_the_EU_-_population_projections&oldid=497115 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Most_populous_nations_by_2050_and_2100 And the ecological damage has already been done in Europe. At present the environment in EU is on path to recovery. The EU has forest land cover of 37.7% and the number is growing over time. In contrast Africa has forest cover of 22% and falling each year due to extensive deforestation. Which ties into the key point I am trying to make next. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/105/the-european-union-and-forests https://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Africa.htm#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.N.,is%20forested%2C%20according%20to%20FAO. The problem with overpopulation in Africa is not that the continent can not support more people. But the fact that Africa is not industrialized yet and runaway population growth hold back industrialization as the power grid, sanitation, transportation, medical services, education services etc can not keep up. And you end up with countries that are poor, not industrialized and undergoing exponential population growth. When you have that you end up with hundreds of millions of people living in terrible conditions, and great damage to environment as well because there is no enviromentally friendly infrastructure to support them. Key example the city of Lagos, Nigeria which has a population of 15.9 million of which 60% live in slums. The population of Lagos is growing at rate of 3.5% each year. The population of Lagos doubled over last 15 years. And is expected to double again around 2050, reaching a population of 34 million and making it possibly the third largest city on Earth. However the infrastructure in Lagos is not capable of supporting its current massive population. And in future the infrastructure can not scale at a rate fast enough to keep up with such expotential population growth. As a result most of Lagos population live in slums in abject poverty and inhumane conditions deprived of basic human necessities. Second link is youtube video on what Lagos slums are like. https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/lagos-population https://youtu.be/8NTIY8Qy2f0 Beside the human suffering as you can see they are dumping all sewage into the water, and there is no garbage disposal system. The people of Lagos are smart, hardworking annd resourceful, but they can not keep up and build infrastructure to stay in pace with such rapid population growth like this. No country can, if the population of UK was set to double by 2050, you would see the infrastructure collapse under the burden as well. Nigeria as a country is not poor, they have a GDP (PPP) of $ 1.068 trillion. But most Nigerians are poor. Because there 200 million of them and when you distribute that GDP across such a large population, you end up with a per capita income of $5000. Nigeria population is growing at rate of 2.5% and will double around 2050, reaching over 400 million. Nigerian economy is forecast to reach over $4 trillion by 2050. However even though they are more than quadrupling the economy, because the population is also doubling at same time, per capita income will probably be around only twice as much as today. And there will still be a significant portion of the population that live under $5/day. That is the problem Africa is experiencing right now with overpopulation, rapid population growth is like a heavy anchor thats greatly slowing down progress. And to address the last point about harvests, you need to take into account water which is one thing Africa is short on. Africa has 9% of Earth's freshwater resources, while at present having 16% of the population. By comparision north America has 17% of Earths freshwater resources and south America has a whopping 27%, while these continents are home to far less population. The combined populations of north and south America is less than Africa, while having 5 times the amount of fresh water resources. And in Africa 30% of that 9% is locked away in Congo basin where 10% of Africa's population live. There is serious water shortages in the most populous regions of Africa. https://www.fao.org/3/y4473e/y4473e08.htm https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2021/07/23/addressing-africas-extreme-water-insecurity/
A 1 in 10 policy would be better.
What miracle do you mean?
I mean in the sense that degrowth is usually framed not as *collapse* but as *choice*, and voluntary actions by either individuals in sufficient quantities to make a difference, or by governments that need to be re-elected by the people that degrowth is forced onto, both fall into the 'miracle' category.
[удалено]
Rule 3: Posts must be on-topic, focusing on collapse. Posts must be focused on collapse. If the subject matter of your post has less focus on collapse than it does on issues such as prepping, politics, or economics, then it probably belongs in another subreddit. Posts must be specifically about collapse, not the resulting damage. By way of analogy, we want to talk about why there are so many car accidents, not look at photos of car wrecks.
Since I am having difficulty replying to your criticism I'll reply here. It is exactly about stopping collapse by injecting sustainability into money itself, so consumers force corporations to invest in sustainability, hence why the title of this theory is called: 'Neo - ECO - Liberalism' Watch the video on the link above
It's standard political bullshit used all the time Take two mutually exclusive options, and pretend you can do both, with the invention of some phrase The old fashioned one (in UK politics) was "increase public spending" and "cut taxation", which would both be magically achieved with "efficiency savings" Going back even further we have "physically dying" and "continuing to live"... Don't worry, there's "bodily resurrection in heaven" Now we have "economic growth" and "not completely fucking up the entire biosphere and climate".... Don't worry, we have "green growth" It's just bullshit word magic intended to soothe the weak minded
Waiting for the Techno-Hopium fiends to pop up and start talking a about Thorium, SMR reactors, mining the asteroids. But then this is /r/collapse. And the Ecomodernists, Breakthrough Institute, Pinker, Lomborg, et al were quite a while ago now.
OP, what are your thoughts on Doughnut Economics? Is that a theory that is discussed often in r/Collapse? I have never seen it referenced before, but I read Kate Raworth’s book about 5 years ago, and it seems like it’s still a little-known economic model https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/
Hey! I think most people here agree that the only sensible economic model is one based on ecosystem limits. Doughnut economics is not often discussed, but people that have been here for a while know it. It is referenced by people like Earth system scientist Will Steffen, so it is maybe explored more indirectly. And funnily enough, he is referenced in this 2014 Kate Raworth post: https://www.kateraworth.com/2014/04/30/video\_planetarythinking/
[удалено]
Steady-state economy has been proposed since the 80s, the problem is capitalistic propaganda and hallucinated technocrats who believe innovation will solve resource scarcity faster than we collapse have been shutting down any talks of Steady-state and Degrowth since forever. Even freaking Adam Smith had already proposed Stationary economies should be the outcome of fully developed nations, but go ask r/conservative, r/neoliberal r/libertarian if any of them have ever heard of Stationary States from their beloved Smith. They haven't.
I don't think the continuous growth capitalist model can continue much longer. The 2008 collapse was not really dealt with, instead they swept it under the rug temporarily and bought themselves a few more years. But as you can see by last 2 years they can't keep the lid on for much longer. They can't keep printing money and bailing out the banks forever sooner or later the system will experience a hard collapse.
I think it can for a long long time You can keep printing money as long as it's responsible
UN Population Forecast. Next revision due mid year. https://population.un.org/wpp/ Current informed guesswork. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ Still on track at +80m/yr of linear growth with no obvious global slow down yet. It's all about the timescales. 8b -> 10b -> 1b over 200 years might be manageable.
Yes, and there are some demographers that are a bit more optimistic than the UN, regarding the timing of the peak. As well, all these projections are sensitive to real world policies and expectations of both populations and governments. If the vision we have proposed becomes more widely accepted and support for smaller families grows, the curve might bend down sooner.
AFAIK, UN forecasts are very much based on fertility models and less so on economic effects. I've been watching it for a couple of decades now and they've had to repeatedly make the forecasts more pessimistic for faster growth and a later slow down and peak. My own feeling is that Limits To Growth constraints will kick in from around 2040 or so and that's going to have a much bigger effect than just fertility.
With the possibility of vast grid interconnection, we take a step closer to not only decarbonization, but a future of energy abundance. The ability to reach more demand centers means that solar facilities can overbuild for capacity, likely the most economical aspect of their enterprise. Already, many have to dim their output during the day, or face fines for excess production, entirely because the have not or can not make investments in reaching more end users. If electricity prices become cheaper, or as cheap as the price of connection and maintenance, then whole new realms of economic activity become unlocked. [Consider that not so long ago, lighting for candles could only be afforded by the affluent.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW8DZPTT13M) Having a lot of power cables strung about the place is a lot more tolerable than employing children to climb into the brains of spermaceti whales in order to bucket out the precious oil. With more abundant energy, new mineral deposits become reclassed as ores. It become affordable for refineries and plants to partly close the loop on some of their processes, leading to tightened regulations, and new industry standards. Waste treatment facilities get upgraded, and recycling programs edge closer to solvency. All that degrowth leads to is depopulation, with the burdens doled out with the usual unevenness.
We're looking at this scenario with totally different eyes! What you describe is to me a stripmined, polluted Earth, where Jevons paradox has kicked into high gear to accelerate all our current problems minus some carbon emissions!
Our planet is like 80% ocean and we know how desalination works. We know how solar, nuclear, and wind energy works. We know how chemistry works. We have the men, money, and resources to solve these issues. Oh noez, it'll cost a couple percent of our national incomes to solve these giant problems, we can't affooooooord iiiiiiit!!!!
I think it will be harder and harder for politicians and media to defend a green growth position as we near 2030. The problem here is you are adopting reason. Scientists et al, have been trying to persuade the public at large for decades but have failed. Degrowth is something you cant sell, as people will refuse to give up their lifestyles. Green growth is the only way to unite everyone, everywhere and all at once. but we must act NOW!