3 ms·

I'm a layperson in these topics, but I've begun to suspect that degrowth is the new expression for what used to be called the "white man's burden", with global

I'm a layperson in these topics, but I've begun to suspect that degrowth is the new expression for what used to be called the "white man's burden", with global warming replacing classical Malthusian overpopulation fears. Particularly as it's applied by first world economies toward developing ones. I have no problem as a libertarian locking in first mover advantage, but doing it by accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of is disgustingly hypocritical. I've even come to miss the kind of hypocrisy that knows what it's saying and doing, as opposed to the kind that simply takes the status quo for granted as if it had existed forever.

carlmr 4y ago
>locking in first mover advantage, but doing it by accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of is disgustingly hypocritical If we don't get degrowth going now it's going to be too late for the world. It's hypocritical, but also if the world is industrialized completely it won't be livable anymore. In either case, it's the tragedy of the commons and we're all f-ed.
- eru 4y ago
  What makes you think so? What specific bad things do you have in mind that would happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change#Aggregate_impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_ch... suggests that eg climate change's economic impact will be between 0% to 20% loss of GDP. That's a lot, but it's also only about at most a decade of growth. It's also a lot less than the difference between the US and the UK's GDP per capita. It would hurt Americans to have to live like Brits, but British living conditions are far from an existential threat.
  - carlmr 4y ago
    I'm worried about the climate impact of economics, not the economic impact of climate change. We could live with less, and we have to if we want to at least lessen the impact of climate change. So we need to get a concerted effort going for degrowth in the world. But it looks like every country is still aiming for maximum industrialization and growth, which is understandable since it's individual optimization.

carlmr 4y ago

>locking in first mover advantage, but doing it by accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of is disgustingly hypocritical If we don't get degrowth going now it's going to be too late for the world. It's hypocritical, but also if the world is industrialized completely it won't be livable anymore. In either case, it's the tragedy of the commons and we're all f-ed.

eru 4y ago
What makes you think so? What specific bad things do you have in mind that would happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change#Aggregate_impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_ch... suggests that eg climate change's economic impact will be between 0% to 20% loss of GDP. That's a lot, but it's also only about at most a decade of growth. It's also a lot less than the difference between the US and the UK's GDP per capita. It would hurt Americans to have to live like Brits, but British living conditions are far from an existential threat.
- carlmr 4y ago
  I'm worried about the climate impact of economics, not the economic impact of climate change. We could live with less, and we have to if we want to at least lessen the impact of climate change. So we need to get a concerted effort going for degrowth in the world. But it looks like every country is still aiming for maximum industrialization and growth, which is understandable since it's individual optimization.