I read in a German journal a dossier about economic growth. The articles were of very high quality. I have a lot of horrible private shit going and I might forgot a lot of facts. But the articles were very interesting.
There is economic growth based on fossill fuels. Green growth based on renewable energies. And de-growth the controlled shrinking of the economy.
The thing is the articles did not change my opinion at all. Maybe this shows that I wasn't fully open for new arguments. I think de-growth would practically be a disaster. There was a Socialist intellectual defending de-growth. And she had to admit this has the potential to fail massively.
Personally, I can understand argument that subsistence and sufficiency has to be taught to citizens. But realistically this would never work. There was a recommendation in a long essay. Decrease the work time by 50% (in Germany this would mean work 20 hours per week). The time you saved her should be spend on following things. Capacities to repair your own products, handcraft capabilities to fix your own issues, and the production of your own groceries.
You cannot tell me this isn't insane? Maybe not if your Ted Kaczynski.
I can understand that products should be used for a longer lifecycle. That repairing should be emphasized over buying new products. Measures against planned obsolescence. There should be an emphasize to re-use products. I see where you are coming from and I agree with that. But the proposal I layed out earlier would never work. We could never have the same life quality. People would never accept that. This would be the nail in the coffin for democracy. Who would actually vote for such a party?
There are so many things to add. You know there are a lot of people who are not skilled at handcraft. I think it is something many humans are not made for. There are specialists who can do this way better. Our standard of living can only be achieved by the fact that every human specializes for a skill. The notion we all become generalist might be good for preparing for an apocalypse. But this would never work. Imagine all the people who need a doctor. All the people in day care. All the severely disabled people. These people profit a lot by a growing economy. The foundation of the welfare state is built on economic growth. You can witness this by that fact of what is happening in Europe. If there is a lack of economic growt, the first targets are vulnerable groups who actually need the most support. Abolishing capitalism sounds like saving the world. Poor people would suffer with concept like that a lot though. My suggestion is not Manchester capitalism. I am aiming for Scandinavia. In the longrun even a way more egalatarian state than the current Scandinavian countries currently.
I think there is a need for utopic visions. And leftwingers need a strong narrative something rightwingers currently have. But de-growth will never be popular. And if we go in that direction good luck Europe. We won't choose this way though. I don't think the average European politician is that naive.
What do you think?
There is economic growth based on fossill fuels. Green growth based on renewable energies. And de-growth the controlled shrinking of the economy.
The thing is the articles did not change my opinion at all. Maybe this shows that I wasn't fully open for new arguments. I think de-growth would practically be a disaster. There was a Socialist intellectual defending de-growth. And she had to admit this has the potential to fail massively.
Personally, I can understand argument that subsistence and sufficiency has to be taught to citizens. But realistically this would never work. There was a recommendation in a long essay. Decrease the work time by 50% (in Germany this would mean work 20 hours per week). The time you saved her should be spend on following things. Capacities to repair your own products, handcraft capabilities to fix your own issues, and the production of your own groceries.
You cannot tell me this isn't insane? Maybe not if your Ted Kaczynski.
I can understand that products should be used for a longer lifecycle. That repairing should be emphasized over buying new products. Measures against planned obsolescence. There should be an emphasize to re-use products. I see where you are coming from and I agree with that. But the proposal I layed out earlier would never work. We could never have the same life quality. People would never accept that. This would be the nail in the coffin for democracy. Who would actually vote for such a party?
There are so many things to add. You know there are a lot of people who are not skilled at handcraft. I think it is something many humans are not made for. There are specialists who can do this way better. Our standard of living can only be achieved by the fact that every human specializes for a skill. The notion we all become generalist might be good for preparing for an apocalypse. But this would never work. Imagine all the people who need a doctor. All the people in day care. All the severely disabled people. These people profit a lot by a growing economy. The foundation of the welfare state is built on economic growth. You can witness this by that fact of what is happening in Europe. If there is a lack of economic growt, the first targets are vulnerable groups who actually need the most support. Abolishing capitalism sounds like saving the world. Poor people would suffer with concept like that a lot though. My suggestion is not Manchester capitalism. I am aiming for Scandinavia. In the longrun even a way more egalatarian state than the current Scandinavian countries currently.
I think there is a need for utopic visions. And leftwingers need a strong narrative something rightwingers currently have. But de-growth will never be popular. And if we go in that direction good luck Europe. We won't choose this way though. I don't think the average European politician is that naive.
What do you think?
