4 ms·

Well, we do need food. But do we need it so highly processed? Do we really need video game consoles or Netflix? Do we need to change phone or car quite so often

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Arguing for greater efficiency or arguing against luxury is so, so different from arguing for degrowth. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that degrowth is fundamentally misanthropic. And the core of the misanthropic philosophy is the belief that mankind and nature are two different things. We will likely die for the lack of philosophy.
  • wmf 4y ago
    Yep, I call it "plants are better than people" thinking.
  • anvandare 4y ago
    Mankind is to Nature as a cancer cell is to the rest of the organism. Very much part of it, also very much going to kill it because it can't stop growing and consuming resources. But there is no intent, it's just buggy code. Mankind is not malicious, just malignant.
    • akimball 4y ago
      ...said every supervillain in scifi. You might want to build an evil AI to swallow the fly.
  • smallerfish 4y ago
    > Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that degrowth is fundamentally misanthropic. And the core of the misanthropic philosophy is the belief that mankind and nature are two different things. I don't believe that one follows from the other. Humanity is part of nature. Humans are sentient, and groups of humans can decide that society and/or group systems should ideally behave in one way or another, e.g. that an economy can be organized in one way or another. Humans can also make models about the future, and make statistical predictions based upon current (sophisticated) understanding of how systems work. This sets humans apart from other organisms in nature which also operate un(or less)consciously in groups, such as ants, viruses, etc, and which have growth that is unchecked to the extent that resources permit. Therefore, it doesn't follow that humans being part of nature implies that unchecked growth is inevitable; humanity recognizing that there are in fact finite resources on this planet which we're currently bound to, and attempting to tailor the systems which affect rate of growth to ensure sufficient runway with those resources, is a very pro-humanity thing to do. That is, some control of population and resource-usage with the goal of preventing resource and environmental exhaustion and subsequent mass calamity is a tradeoff that attempts to promote the longevity of reasonable living standards with the possible expense of some liberties and the possible reining in of some unthinking consumption patterns. That doesn't equate to misanthropy, any more than preventing a 3 year old from eating a fourth bowl of ice cream does.
  • dariosalvi78 4y ago
    it's rather the opposite, it comes from the observation that humans operate in a natural environment, which has limits
• phailhaus 4y ago
  > But do we need it so highly processed? Yes. This is how you bring down the cost of food to get it to enough people.
  • Yoric 4y ago
    You are probably right in many cases. I'm not convinced that it quite extends to the entire spectrum of junk food, though. Processing oreos (feel free to replace with anything else) quite so much may bring the cost down, but I doubt that it actually does anything to feed people.
• Manuel_D 4y ago
  Video games and Netflix are among the least environmentally impactful forms of entertainment. They use far less land and resources than, say, golf or most sports.
  • germinalphrase 4y ago
    Having worked on film sets, they are incredibly wasteful.
    • thfuran 4y ago
      A movie can provide tens of millions person-hours of entertainment. How much resources do other forms of entertainment waste at that scale?
    • Manuel_D 4y ago
      Compared to a golf course? Compared to how ever many golf courses are necessary to serve as many entertainment-hours as a movie?
  • Yoric 4y ago
    I'm sure we can expand my list.