3 ms·
It's certainly a thought provoking piece. I'm wondering how stable the system is if all countries decide to degrowth, but one doesn't play ball. Naively you'd
by sega_sai 4y ago
It's certainly a thought provoking piece.
I'm wondering how stable the system is if all countries decide to degrowth, but one doesn't play ball. Naively you'd think that country would start to dominate economically/politically, so others may have to 'defect' as well... But maybe that's too simplistic.
- kspacewalk2 4y agoThe exact same logic makes nuclear disarmament extremely, almost laughably unlikely.
- akimball 4y ago...given the perpetuation of competitive nation-states.
- candiodari 4y agoAnd while the number of nukes has decreased, the number of nations, fingers on nuclear buttons if you will, has steadily increased ... as has the threat they pose (recently both the US and Russia have tried to demonstrate supersonic nuclear-capable missiles. And while neither nation currently appears capable of actually carrying out a strike using such means, obviously they're both not that far from a working system)
- cryptonector 4y ago> ...if all countries decide to degrowth, ... Countries don't decide to degrowth -- people are certainly not willing, right now, to make such decisions. Other people make those decisions and force them on people. > but one doesn't play ball. And why wouldn't some country play ball, if not because it's better for it to keep growing and take advantage of other countries' partial suicides? All of this is premised on there being a current, extreme urgency for degrowth. The debates on that are hardly settled.