4 ms·

> I'd trade most (though maybe not all) of the great meals I've ever had for the guarantee I'd never go hungry. I wouldn’t — and there’s been times I was quite

> I'd trade most (though maybe not all) of the great meals I've ever had for the guarantee I'd never go hungry. I wouldn’t — and there’s been times I was quite hungry while homeless. Moreover, your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me.

pessimizer 4y ago
> your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me. That's entirely up for discussion. Civilization has imposed a lot of choices on you that you may not like.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  In the same sense any rights are “entirely up for discussion”. Is that your point? — that because we had slavery, slavery is “entirely up for discussion”?
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    No, in a different sense, because the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right. The rights you have were decided upon by people who aren't you, and imposed on you. I'm theoretically sympathetic to your wanting to opt out of public services, but it's too onerous to have to maintain lists of houses not to put out if they're on fire.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      > the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right You just said the right to not be a slave is a made-up right. > it's too onerous to have to maintain lists of houses not to put out if they're on fire So don’t? — but you’re losing me at the point you go from “I save money by not tracking exceptions” to “I have the right to make you participate because I want your money”.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        If you consider obeying the law equivalent to slavery, then I absolutely am saying that. The law is other people's choices imposed upon you.
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        Sure — as is slavery. Which is my point: you’re not differentiating between the two, while asserting that you don’t have the same rights in one case. Slavery was also the law.
    - tremon 4y ago
      I'm less sympathetic: I wouldn't want to live next to a house that has opted out of sewage service.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      > because the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right I agree with this statement. Actually, I consider this more of a principle than a right. Society should aim to minimize the degree to which it imposes the will of the government on the citizens, not fundamentally because freedom is an a priori right, but because it leads to a more peaceful society. A society where the citizens do not tolerate would be tyrants that want to excessively dictate how people live, tends to be (EDIT) more stable, innovative or economically competitive over time. Citizens of a freedom-loving society may not all understand this from first principles. Even if most believe they have such a right somewhat dogmatically, it may still have the same outcome. Dogmatism may come with the downside of seeing people with different opinions as evil, though, and may sometimes lead to needless conflict.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > Is that your point? — that because we had slavery, slavery is “entirely up for discussion”? That discussion has been settled in the West, at least for now. In many places, the discussion is still ongoing, and in fact, they are an estimated 40 million slaves (or similarly bonded people) on Earth today, or about 10x as many as in the US South in 1860. I find it a bit funny that in an increasingly atheistic society, some Christian values are held even more axiomatically than ever before, and racism is particular Statues of American founders get torn down due to some link to it. Imagine if everything around the world with some link to forced labor would be given the same treatment. We would have to remove almost every ancient monument or statue from Italy, Greece, Egypt, the Middle East, India, China, former Aztec and Inka peoples, just to mention a few. Also most ancient works of writing, from all over the globe would have to be given introduction with warning that the author may have owned slaves or benefitted from slave labor. I'm not American. I did not grow up with the legacy of American slavery. By no means do I endorse slavery, but when reading about Aristotle's ideas about slavery, I'm able to imagine a world where slavery is seen as normal. In many cases, those who lost some war would end up as slaves. But typically, that would go both ways. Whichever side won would enslave the other. I have trouble seeing almost every inhabitant of classical Europe, the Middle East or North Africa as evil just because they either did own slaves, or would have owned slaves had they been able to. Just like I have trouble seeing a Lion or Hyena as evil for eating a Zebra. (Ok, maybe I can see the Hyena as evil, mainly because they're ugly ;)
imtringued 4y ago
>Moreover, your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me. You will have to explain how reducing growth dependence reduces agency. If anything, one could argue that there is no such thing as agency with growth dependence.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  > You will have to explain how reducing growth dependence reduces agency. Your process of “reducing growth dependence” is fundamentally you stifling and regimenting growth. You don’t have a fundamental right to moderate my growth, against my wishes — but I do have a fundamental right to seek growth.
  - sprucevoid 4y ago
    > You don’t have a fundamental right to moderate my growth, against my wishes — but I do have a fundamental right to seek growth. No, neither is a fundamental right. Because both growth and degrowth as a national policy (or global international policy) has immense consequences on the opportunities and outcomes in peoples lives. Both stifle and regiment the lives and actions of people in a myriad of ways (climate change is a massive externality for everyone!), so anti-stifling arguments have no traction. The only arguments that can do real work will have to concern policy consequences: which policy yields better life outcomes in terms of health, wellbeing, longevity and so on.
    - jiriknesl 4y ago
      Growth or degrowth are not national policies but individual ones. You cannot prevent someone with growth mindset from doing actions leading to growth. And at the same time, nobody is preventing people with degrowth mindset to practice what they preach.
      - sprucevoid 4y ago
        > Growth or degrowth are not national policies but individual ones Degrowth as used in the OP article is about macro level policy. For example solar panel subsidies, taxing coal and investments in public transportation. Individual actions performed in the name of "growth mindset" (whatever that means) can like any other actions be stopped, and likely will be stopped if they cause harm to others.

pessimizer 4y ago

> your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me. That's entirely up for discussion. Civilization has imposed a lot of choices on you that you may not like.

zmgsabst 4y ago
In the same sense any rights are “entirely up for discussion”. Is that your point? — that because we had slavery, slavery is “entirely up for discussion”?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  No, in a different sense, because the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right. The rights you have were decided upon by people who aren't you, and imposed on you. I'm theoretically sympathetic to your wanting to opt out of public services, but it's too onerous to have to maintain lists of houses not to put out if they're on fire.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    > the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right You just said the right to not be a slave is a made-up right. > it's too onerous to have to maintain lists of houses not to put out if they're on fire So don’t? — but you’re losing me at the point you go from “I save money by not tracking exceptions” to “I have the right to make you participate because I want your money”.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      If you consider obeying the law equivalent to slavery, then I absolutely am saying that. The law is other people's choices imposed upon you.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        Sure — as is slavery. Which is my point: you’re not differentiating between the two, while asserting that you don’t have the same rights in one case. Slavery was also the law.
  - tremon 4y ago
    I'm less sympathetic: I wouldn't want to live next to a house that has opted out of sewage service.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > because the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right I agree with this statement. Actually, I consider this more of a principle than a right. Society should aim to minimize the degree to which it imposes the will of the government on the citizens, not fundamentally because freedom is an a priori right, but because it leads to a more peaceful society. A society where the citizens do not tolerate would be tyrants that want to excessively dictate how people live, tends to be (EDIT) more stable, innovative or economically competitive over time. Citizens of a freedom-loving society may not all understand this from first principles. Even if most believe they have such a right somewhat dogmatically, it may still have the same outcome. Dogmatism may come with the downside of seeing people with different opinions as evil, though, and may sometimes lead to needless conflict.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > Is that your point? — that because we had slavery, slavery is “entirely up for discussion”? That discussion has been settled in the West, at least for now. In many places, the discussion is still ongoing, and in fact, they are an estimated 40 million slaves (or similarly bonded people) on Earth today, or about 10x as many as in the US South in 1860. I find it a bit funny that in an increasingly atheistic society, some Christian values are held even more axiomatically than ever before, and racism is particular Statues of American founders get torn down due to some link to it. Imagine if everything around the world with some link to forced labor would be given the same treatment. We would have to remove almost every ancient monument or statue from Italy, Greece, Egypt, the Middle East, India, China, former Aztec and Inka peoples, just to mention a few. Also most ancient works of writing, from all over the globe would have to be given introduction with warning that the author may have owned slaves or benefitted from slave labor. I'm not American. I did not grow up with the legacy of American slavery. By no means do I endorse slavery, but when reading about Aristotle's ideas about slavery, I'm able to imagine a world where slavery is seen as normal. In many cases, those who lost some war would end up as slaves. But typically, that would go both ways. Whichever side won would enslave the other. I have trouble seeing almost every inhabitant of classical Europe, the Middle East or North Africa as evil just because they either did own slaves, or would have owned slaves had they been able to. Just like I have trouble seeing a Lion or Hyena as evil for eating a Zebra. (Ok, maybe I can see the Hyena as evil, mainly because they're ugly ;)

imtringued 4y ago

>Moreover, your fear doesn’t give you the right to impose that choice on me. You will have to explain how reducing growth dependence reduces agency. If anything, one could argue that there is no such thing as agency with growth dependence.

zmgsabst 4y ago
> You will have to explain how reducing growth dependence reduces agency. Your process of “reducing growth dependence” is fundamentally you stifling and regimenting growth. You don’t have a fundamental right to moderate my growth, against my wishes — but I do have a fundamental right to seek growth.
- sprucevoid 4y ago
  > You don’t have a fundamental right to moderate my growth, against my wishes — but I do have a fundamental right to seek growth. No, neither is a fundamental right. Because both growth and degrowth as a national policy (or global international policy) has immense consequences on the opportunities and outcomes in peoples lives. Both stifle and regiment the lives and actions of people in a myriad of ways (climate change is a massive externality for everyone!), so anti-stifling arguments have no traction. The only arguments that can do real work will have to concern policy consequences: which policy yields better life outcomes in terms of health, wellbeing, longevity and so on.
  - jiriknesl 4y ago
    Growth or degrowth are not national policies but individual ones. You cannot prevent someone with growth mindset from doing actions leading to growth. And at the same time, nobody is preventing people with degrowth mindset to practice what they preach.
    - sprucevoid 4y ago
      > Growth or degrowth are not national policies but individual ones Degrowth as used in the OP article is about macro level policy. For example solar panel subsidies, taxing coal and investments in public transportation. Individual actions performed in the name of "growth mindset" (whatever that means) can like any other actions be stopped, and likely will be stopped if they cause harm to others.