5 ms·

> by slowly and reluctantly altering the traditional society, like the Chinese?’ No need to have some kind of "cultural revolution"? >Endless growth – green o

by scythe 4y ago

> by slowly and reluctantly altering the traditional society, like the Chinese?’ No need to have some kind of "cultural revolution"? >Endless growth – green or not These arguments are all the same. They take the current rate of growth, plug in a time period longer than has elapsed since the death of vitalism as a theory of life (an idea which, today, is laughable to consider), and conclude that we need to stop growing immediately. Obviously we have to stop growing at some point. The Sun produces a finite amount of power [1], the density of the Universe is very low, etc. Why now? The eco-pessimists never answer this question, and that is because right now is the wrong time to stop growing. This article does not attempt to address it at all, but flings a few symbols around to put on the air of rigor. Bonus points for somehow managing to use the word "decolonise". At the current rate of growth, the right time would probably be in about 150 years. But the rate of growth has actually been slowing down over the last century, and will likely continue to gradually slow, as scientific discoveries continue to become more difficult. Taking that into account, the end of growth is probably half a millenium out, supposing a huge war or other disaster doesn't set us back. I suspect the real reason people want to advocate for the end of growth now is because everyone wants to be a revolutionary; everyone wants to make the kind of great, world-shaking advancement that Einstein or Fleming or Borlaug did. To admit that while we probably have to stop growing, it won't be for a long time — that would be sort of dull. You can't sell books about it. 1: Energy per unit time.

dariosalvi78 4y ago
the main message I get from degrowthers is that we should, first and foremost, abandon the idea of growth as the driver of our economy. After we have assumed that growth is silly, we can start discussing about how a post-growth economy will look like. It's going to be a slow process, probably mostly guided through legislation. The alternative is an increasing speed of crises and collapses (destroy and regrow).
actually_a_dog 4y ago
Here's your answer: because if we continue on our current trajectory, in a mere 30-50 years, we will be experiencing significant effects of societal collapse due to climate change that make the current societal effects of ecological collapse we're experiencing (breakdown of supply chains, erosion of institutions, loss of biodiversity, record high global temperatures, etc.) seem like "the good old days." I'm talking "kids born today will die in a world that resembles Mad Max" kind of effects. We don't have 500 years to do something about that. We have to do it now.
- scythe 4y ago
  >in a mere 30-50 years, we will be experiencing significant effects of societal collapse due to climate change No, we won't. You have no evidence for this and nobody who studies the problem believes it. Furthermore, climate change doesn't work that way: the 50-year outlook is largely "baked in", and reforms made now are trying to change the 100-200-year outlook.
- pauldenton 4y ago
  Citation needed
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    Go do your own research -- and I mean, real, honest research, not "I'm going go confirm my own ideological biases." Don't pretend you're here to be convinced by me. I've seen your post history.
    - scythe 4y ago
      >Go do your own research I'm a physicist. I have friends who actually study climate science, as in, it's their job. I have spend my entire adult life paying attention to the problem. Nobody believes the kind of things you're claiming. There's a simple graph here: https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ It shows that if GHG emissions drop by 2/3 in ten years and disappear in 50, we get a +1.3 C difference in 80 years (2100), whereas "current policies" is a +2.9 C change. When you reduce that to 50 years, it gets narrower; climate change is doubly cumulative (CO2 accumulates, which drives the accumulation of heat). But in practice, we expect to reduce emissions while continuing to grow the economy, thanks to renewables. The actual 50-year difference between shutting off the economy and just building some goddamn solar panels is probably less than half a degree. I'm not here to "be convinced" by you. I'm here to, hopefully, convince you to stop derailing the debate and making my side look silly. Climate change is a problem. It is a problem that needs to be taken seriously. It is not the end of human development.

by scythe 4y ago

dariosalvi78 4y ago

the main message I get from degrowthers is that we should, first and foremost, abandon the idea of growth as the driver of our economy. After we have assumed that growth is silly, we can start discussing about how a post-growth economy will look like. It's going to be a slow process, probably mostly guided through legislation. The alternative is an increasing speed of crises and collapses (destroy and regrow).

actually_a_dog 4y ago

Here's your answer: because if we continue on our current trajectory, in a mere 30-50 years, we will be experiencing significant effects of societal collapse due to climate change that make the current societal effects of ecological collapse we're experiencing (breakdown of supply chains, erosion of institutions, loss of biodiversity, record high global temperatures, etc.) seem like "the good old days." I'm talking "kids born today will die in a world that resembles Mad Max" kind of effects. We don't have 500 years to do something about that. We have to do it now.

scythe 4y ago
>in a mere 30-50 years, we will be experiencing significant effects of societal collapse due to climate change No, we won't. You have no evidence for this and nobody who studies the problem believes it. Furthermore, climate change doesn't work that way: the 50-year outlook is largely "baked in", and reforms made now are trying to change the 100-200-year outlook.
pauldenton 4y ago
Citation needed
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  Go do your own research -- and I mean, real, honest research, not "I'm going go confirm my own ideological biases." Don't pretend you're here to be convinced by me. I've seen your post history.
  - scythe 4y ago
    >Go do your own research I'm a physicist. I have friends who actually study climate science, as in, it's their job. I have spend my entire adult life paying attention to the problem. Nobody believes the kind of things you're claiming. There's a simple graph here: https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ It shows that if GHG emissions drop by 2/3 in ten years and disappear in 50, we get a +1.3 C difference in 80 years (2100), whereas "current policies" is a +2.9 C change. When you reduce that to 50 years, it gets narrower; climate change is doubly cumulative (CO2 accumulates, which drives the accumulation of heat). But in practice, we expect to reduce emissions while continuing to grow the economy, thanks to renewables. The actual 50-year difference between shutting off the economy and just building some goddamn solar panels is probably less than half a degree. I'm not here to "be convinced" by you. I'm here to, hopefully, convince you to stop derailing the debate and making my side look silly. Climate change is a problem. It is a problem that needs to be taken seriously. It is not the end of human development.