3 ms·

There is a real need for education of the masses. Not destroying the planet should win elections, not lose them.

energy123 9mo ago
I favor public education, but let's not kid ourselves, there is not a polity on earth where degrowth would get more than 20% support. It's a weird social media echo chamber artefact that will exclusively sabotage efforts to decarbonize.
- viraptor 9mo ago
  In a sane election system, 20% gives a party a significant position in the government that influences the coalition and drives some of the future decisions. Just not in the two-party circus.
  - rob74 9mo ago
    ...or everyone else decides to marginalize that 20% party and allies with the far right instead (I don't want to defend the US system, but proportional representation is not a panacea either).
  - andsoitis 9mo ago
    > In a sane election system, 20% gives a party a significant position in the government that influences the coalition and drives some of the future decisions. Just not in the two-party circus. There is no consensus among political scientists that either a two-party system or a multi-party/coalition system is inherently “better.” Each design produces different trade-offs in representation, stability, accountability, and policy outcomes.
- nicoburns 9mo ago
  > there is not a polity on earth where degrowth would get more than 20% support Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Sustainability politics is mainstream in Europe in a way it isn't in the US. Aside from ethical concerns, a lot of people over here see climate change as a very real economic threat (likely to cause them material economic harm within their lifetimes). You're probably right that a general degrowth strategy wouldn't ever be popular, but I bet a policy that say restricted AI and cryptocurrency with the aim of reducing electricity prices would be.
  - andsoitis 9mo ago
    > You're probably right that a general degrowth strategy wouldn't ever be popular, but I bet a policy that say restricted AI and cryptocurrency with the aim of reducing electricity prices would be. That's arbitrary. If you went back in time before AI and crypto, which industries would you pick to constrain growth or development of? Is it whatever the latest industry is that is driving incremental emissions? If so, I don't know that it is a compelling mental model, because that is a degrowth mindset.
    - nicoburns 9mo ago
      > which industries would you pick to constrain growth or development of? Is it whatever the latest industry is that is driving incremental emissions? My mental model is more about industries that are using a lot of resources without actually generating value comensurate with that use.
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
- hvb2 9mo ago
  There's a lot to gain from just efficiency it doesn't have to be degrowth. But forever growth also isn't sustainable. No matter how productive we are, the planet would still not survive.
lotsofpulp 9mo ago
Intentionally reducing quality of life in the short term will never win elections, no matter how educated a populace is. The best strategy to reduce consumption that seems to be working is allowing below replacement total fertility rates.
- rob74 9mo ago
  But then you get an aging population and all the problems that that brings with it.
  - disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
    Only for a generation (mostly \s but entirely true).
    - andsoitis 9mo ago
      >> But then you get an aging population and all the problems that that brings with it. > Only for a generation (mostly \s but entirely true). That's not accurate. The problems of population aging are not confined to a single generation. They are structural and persistent, unless the underlying institutions adapt. Aging is a continuing demographic process, not a single event. Once a society enters sustained low fertility and longer life expectancy, each cohort is smaller than the one before it. Each cohort also lives longer. That means that today's workers support more retirees. Tomorrow's workers will support even more, unless something changes. It can feel (but isn't) like a single generation problem if major structural changes happen like: raising retirement age in line with life expectancy, shifting pensions to funded, large-scale immigration, major productivity gains from technology, or cultural shifts to high fertility.
      - disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
        > Once a society enters sustained low fertility and longer life expectancy, each cohort is smaller than the one before it. I mean, unless fertility completely collapses (to like less than 0.5) then it'll mostly be a single generation problem. Regardless of any future changes, the current generation (my kids etc) will be supporting a much larger older cohort, with problems arising from that. I am one of 4 siblings, have two kids, and as long as both of them have two kids, no more problems arise (obviously extrapolating to the population). There's some amount of irreducible demand for kids so I'd be surprised to see TFR continue to decline on a generational basis. Mind you, I could be wrong (or alternatively, we could see a massive increase in TFR like we did post WW2).

I favor public education, but let's not kid ourselves, there is not a polity on earth where degrowth would get more than 20% support. It's a weird social media echo chamber artefact that will exclusively sabotage efforts to decarbonize.

viraptor 9mo ago
In a sane election system, 20% gives a party a significant position in the government that influences the coalition and drives some of the future decisions. Just not in the two-party circus.
- rob74 9mo ago
  ...or everyone else decides to marginalize that 20% party and allies with the far right instead (I don't want to defend the US system, but proportional representation is not a panacea either).
- andsoitis 9mo ago
  > In a sane election system, 20% gives a party a significant position in the government that influences the coalition and drives some of the future decisions. Just not in the two-party circus. There is no consensus among political scientists that either a two-party system or a multi-party/coalition system is inherently “better.” Each design produces different trade-offs in representation, stability, accountability, and policy outcomes.
nicoburns 9mo ago
> there is not a polity on earth where degrowth would get more than 20% support Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Sustainability politics is mainstream in Europe in a way it isn't in the US. Aside from ethical concerns, a lot of people over here see climate change as a very real economic threat (likely to cause them material economic harm within their lifetimes). You're probably right that a general degrowth strategy wouldn't ever be popular, but I bet a policy that say restricted AI and cryptocurrency with the aim of reducing electricity prices would be.
- andsoitis 9mo ago
  > You're probably right that a general degrowth strategy wouldn't ever be popular, but I bet a policy that say restricted AI and cryptocurrency with the aim of reducing electricity prices would be. That's arbitrary. If you went back in time before AI and crypto, which industries would you pick to constrain growth or development of? Is it whatever the latest industry is that is driving incremental emissions? If so, I don't know that it is a compelling mental model, because that is a degrowth mindset.
  - nicoburns 9mo ago
    > which industries would you pick to constrain growth or development of? Is it whatever the latest industry is that is driving incremental emissions? My mental model is more about industries that are using a lot of resources without actually generating value comensurate with that use.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
hvb2 9mo ago
There's a lot to gain from just efficiency it doesn't have to be degrowth. But forever growth also isn't sustainable. No matter how productive we are, the planet would still not survive.

lotsofpulp 9mo ago

Intentionally reducing quality of life in the short term will never win elections, no matter how educated a populace is. The best strategy to reduce consumption that seems to be working is allowing below replacement total fertility rates.

rob74 9mo ago
But then you get an aging population and all the problems that that brings with it.
- disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
  Only for a generation (mostly \s but entirely true).
  - andsoitis 9mo ago
    >> But then you get an aging population and all the problems that that brings with it. > Only for a generation (mostly \s but entirely true). That's not accurate. The problems of population aging are not confined to a single generation. They are structural and persistent, unless the underlying institutions adapt. Aging is a continuing demographic process, not a single event. Once a society enters sustained low fertility and longer life expectancy, each cohort is smaller than the one before it. Each cohort also lives longer. That means that today's workers support more retirees. Tomorrow's workers will support even more, unless something changes. It can feel (but isn't) like a single generation problem if major structural changes happen like: raising retirement age in line with life expectancy, shifting pensions to funded, large-scale immigration, major productivity gains from technology, or cultural shifts to high fertility.
    - disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
      > Once a society enters sustained low fertility and longer life expectancy, each cohort is smaller than the one before it. I mean, unless fertility completely collapses (to like less than 0.5) then it'll mostly be a single generation problem. Regardless of any future changes, the current generation (my kids etc) will be supporting a much larger older cohort, with problems arising from that. I am one of 4 siblings, have two kids, and as long as both of them have two kids, no more problems arise (obviously extrapolating to the population). There's some amount of irreducible demand for kids so I'd be surprised to see TFR continue to decline on a generational basis. Mind you, I could be wrong (or alternatively, we could see a massive increase in TFR like we did post WW2).