3 ms·

> degrowth > it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions What about sustainable growth focused on actual quality of life

> degrowth > it is impossible to convince societies to take massive quality-of-life reductions What about sustainable growth focused on actual quality of life and not on perpetuating a system that produce/consume useless cheap low quality gadgets and services for the sole purpose of keeping the population at work 8 hours a day until they hit 65/67 years old (age by the time 25% of the poorest are already dead) The fact that we (may have) decoupled growth and co2 doesn't mean all growth is progress or that all growth is desirable.

collyw 4y ago
How would you measure "sustainable growth focused on actual quality of life"? Generally economic growth goes hand in hand with an objective increase in quality of life, though as i just mentioned, the ways of measuring that are via poor proxies at best.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > though as i just mentioned, the ways of measuring that are via poor proxies at best. Goodhart's law comes to mind: > Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes. I don't think we should measure it – at least, not obsessively. We should research and study it, and put in place measures that should theoretically work, and pay attention to whether what we're doing is working, but we shouldn't look at the measurements and go "this is making the numbers go down; we must be doing something wrong!" without at least double-checking that the numbers make sense.
  - collyw 4y ago
    As I pointed out the most obvious way to to that at present is by increasing peoples wealth.
chii 4y ago
> for the sole purpose of keeping the population at work 8 hours a day until they hit 65/67 years old it isn't the purpose, but a side effect.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  This is extremely arguable. And one might say the main effect, not the side effect.
refurb 4y ago
What definition of "quality of life"? Last I checked, there isn't widespread agreement on what that means.
zajio1am 4y ago
People individually choose to buy these 'useless cheap low quality gadgets and services' and work full-time until retirement instead of living frugally and limiting work time (like advocates of FIRE movement). Who are we do prescribe what is best for others?
- lm28469 4y ago
  > People individually choose to buy these 'useless cheap low quality gadgets and services' After decades of Hollywood propaganda, non stop advertisement from birth, &c. yes sure the "choose" it. We're still Neanderthals looking for shiny sea shells on a beach, the problem is that it's been weaponised against us. Do people want to doom scroll social medias ? Do people want this sickening political polarisation ? Do people want to retire at 67 ? Did people agree to bail failed banks in 2008 ? Did people agree to go from 1:6 to 1:1000+ employee:employer compensation over the last 100 years ? > and work full-time until retirement instead of living frugally and limiting work time I could keep my lifestyle with 1 day of work a week but no company would hire me for that schedule, but at the same time I'd need to save for 30 years to afford my own place. Most jobs barely pay living wages, talking about frugality and FIRE seems easy in the techbro bubble but it isn't a reality for the vast majority of people. Unless frugality means living in a 30sqm flat and renouncing on basic things like healthcare, vacations, kids, owning your house, &c. that your grandparents could afford while being 10x less productive than we are today > Who are we do prescribe what is best for others? Who are they to prescribe what's best for others ? The propaganda is so deeply rooted that questioning our insane consumerist system triggers allergic reaction such as yours
- thethirdone 4y ago
  Society at large already prescribes what is best for others. When the government or major business owners choose to do A versus B. In many cases, people do not to choose on their own for the opposite. As a clear example, if you want a 3.5 mm headphone jack on the newest iphone, that is just not possible. Apple chose for you.| In many cases, these choices are more obscured, but it is not at all inappropriate (relative to what currently is acceptable) to force degrowth.

collyw 4y ago

How would you measure "sustainable growth focused on actual quality of life"? Generally economic growth goes hand in hand with an objective increase in quality of life, though as i just mentioned, the ways of measuring that are via poor proxies at best.

wizzwizz4 4y ago
> though as i just mentioned, the ways of measuring that are via poor proxies at best. Goodhart's law comes to mind: > Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes. I don't think we should measure it – at least, not obsessively. We should research and study it, and put in place measures that should theoretically work, and pay attention to whether what we're doing is working, but we shouldn't look at the measurements and go "this is making the numbers go down; we must be doing something wrong!" without at least double-checking that the numbers make sense.
- collyw 4y ago
  As I pointed out the most obvious way to to that at present is by increasing peoples wealth.

chii 4y ago

> for the sole purpose of keeping the population at work 8 hours a day until they hit 65/67 years old it isn't the purpose, but a side effect.

philosopher1234 4y ago
This is extremely arguable. And one might say the main effect, not the side effect.

refurb 4y ago

What definition of "quality of life"? Last I checked, there isn't widespread agreement on what that means.

zajio1am 4y ago

People individually choose to buy these 'useless cheap low quality gadgets and services' and work full-time until retirement instead of living frugally and limiting work time (like advocates of FIRE movement). Who are we do prescribe what is best for others?

lm28469 4y ago
> People individually choose to buy these 'useless cheap low quality gadgets and services' After decades of Hollywood propaganda, non stop advertisement from birth, &c. yes sure the "choose" it. We're still Neanderthals looking for shiny sea shells on a beach, the problem is that it's been weaponised against us. Do people want to doom scroll social medias ? Do people want this sickening political polarisation ? Do people want to retire at 67 ? Did people agree to bail failed banks in 2008 ? Did people agree to go from 1:6 to 1:1000+ employee:employer compensation over the last 100 years ? > and work full-time until retirement instead of living frugally and limiting work time I could keep my lifestyle with 1 day of work a week but no company would hire me for that schedule, but at the same time I'd need to save for 30 years to afford my own place. Most jobs barely pay living wages, talking about frugality and FIRE seems easy in the techbro bubble but it isn't a reality for the vast majority of people. Unless frugality means living in a 30sqm flat and renouncing on basic things like healthcare, vacations, kids, owning your house, &c. that your grandparents could afford while being 10x less productive than we are today > Who are we do prescribe what is best for others? Who are they to prescribe what's best for others ? The propaganda is so deeply rooted that questioning our insane consumerist system triggers allergic reaction such as yours
thethirdone 4y ago
Society at large already prescribes what is best for others. When the government or major business owners choose to do A versus B. In many cases, people do not to choose on their own for the opposite. As a clear example, if you want a 3.5 mm headphone jack on the newest iphone, that is just not possible. Apple chose for you.| In many cases, these choices are more obscured, but it is not at all inappropriate (relative to what currently is acceptable) to force degrowth.