> In human history, when there has been a period of protracted degrowth something bad has very much happened - usually civilizational collapse or severe prolong

> In human history, when there has been a period of protracted degrowth something bad has very much happened - usually civilizational collapse or severe prolonged economic downturn. Bad things have caused degrowth, that doesn't refute what I said though. The Edo Period in Japan is said to be a canonical example of degrowth that was not catastrophic. Japan today has had GDP per capita pretty steady for the past 35 years and so far nothing horrific, just the hilarious wailing and gnashing of teeth from western "experts". So I think those are sufficient counter-examples. > I agree on the first two, but I believe that an expectation of the third is foundational to the post-Enlightenment social order. It has waxed and waned, and there have obviously been incredibly dark periods, but we've usually returned to "things will be better in the future" as a setpoint. 1. Have we, really? 2. Various objective and subjective quality of life metrics have been going backwards in some western countries for a generation now. 3. What about it is it that you think is foundational to social order? What happens if we don't have it.? In any case it's an unsustainable expectation that is going to have to change one way or another. If we're going by feelings and anecdotes, my feeling is that people in general don't actually need that at all. They want some amount of fairness, freedom, self-determination, and the ability to personally get ahead. They don't need to be ahead of where their parents were at the same age, they want to be able to be ahead of where they were yesterday (at least in economic terms).