The degrowth philosophy underlay a lot of 20th Century science fiction (see Star Trek's "Mark of Gideon" episode, the movie "Soylant Green" and many others). It has also been a driver of the push for birth control and unrestricted abortion. Under current population projections it won't be until late this century or the 22nd Century that people will start to realize that more people is a good thing.
Thoughtful article, though I do not in any way see your point re "right-wing degrowth". Wanting to keep jobs locally versus off shore is not , by my reckoning, even remotely related to suppressing the growth of manufacturing or for that matter humanity. It is protecting the politicians most precious asset -- the tax base! You posit that sending work off shore results in net wealth increase via lowered prices for goods, neglecting to factor the cost of loss of jobs, and the comcomitant effects of reduction of the economic multiplier. You present a hypothesis as fact that as far as I know is unproven. Respectfully submitted ....
The advent of computer modeling 25 years unleashed legions of "climate scientists" upon the world. Led by the UN which really had no purpose until the era of Climate Doomism, "we're burning up the planet." Their output was a series of IPCC reports that started the world on it's current "Carbon" boondoggle. To say the IPCC was laughably flawed does not do justice to the concept. Nonetheless bureaucrats around the world seized the banner and began what is really a degrowth plan. In time, solar, nuclear and biofuels may shoulder part of the burden of energizing a growing middle class in the developing world. There is no scenario in which continued use of petro fuels fails to play a crucial role in supporting the 2050 population of 10 bn or so. That is if the western world is going to maintain it's current standard of living and the developing world is going to get air conditioning and refrigerators. That is the ultimate goal of the degrowthers-anti-oil crazies. Until recently they have been winning-Biden/Harris-big time. The flaws in green energy are now becoming more widely known and this nonsense will be scaled back. I will end with two points. 1-Cutting carbon will have absolutely no effect on temps in 2050-humans will adapt to slightly warmer temps. 2 The Iron Law of Electricity states that once people have it, then lose it, they will burn anything to get it back.
Computer modeling is like AI today , much promise with little actual data on how effective it is , and since it's very easy to play with the models these models are always in constant flux of change and thus no one does any studies on them and thus no real data to prove if they are ever right . Pinning AI down is going to be worse in trying to determine effectiveness since it's DB is always in a state of update by design . And thus these products are a sales person dream you can claim almost anything from the results and they do . I've worked and been educated in computing for 40+ years and I've seen it all and heard it all from the sales of thus products , and these people can sell ice to Eskimos as the saying goes . So it's a buyer market beware area , and I guess that is why it's used in this climate change weather stories all the time . I have very little faith in these results and predictions in knowing where they come from .
“The paper concluded, “published research on degrowth is dominated by ideology while lacking scientific quality.” “ Wouldn’t this be true of the vast amount of current ‘research’?
It appears there was a fundamental error made in estimating past population by a factor of ten. This suggests;
(1) the methodology was flawed, and where that methodology is used elsewhere it should be questioned, or
(2) this was a story from a particular environmental world view in search of evidence, and that evidence had to show massive population decline, and so in the absence of other corroborating evidence, it was made to fit the story.
There are plenty of resources for humans alone to live on this planet, but we do not live alone. Human expansion disrupts the resources of the other animals that live here with us. Large carnivores are often forced into interaction with humans, putting both in danger. And the disruption of our natural ecosystems has contributed to the changing climate that many on the left have been crying about.
it's not about whether humans can be supported, it's about can we live in harmony with the rest of the planet. As we increase our numbers, the answer is increasingly no.
a) I have read that the food growing land is not optimal there and a huge portion of the pollution was forced to participate in building the statues ... so there were fewer to work the land and produce food.
b) Population growth past a resources-balanced point is absolutely detrimental to populations and nations and there are many examples. More population means less for each person yet more consumption of natural resources like cutting trees, water, agricultural land, etc. Where resources are limited and disappear the impact can be catastrophic.
Haiti is one example. In 1960 the population was 4 million, in 2023 near 12 million ... The island did not get bigger, more food, water or wood producing resources did not magically appeared .... There is simply increasingly much less for each person as their population grows.
Take Sudan too, a desert nation with little water and no forests, that has been in a horrific tribal/religious war for decades in large part over the sharing of resources. From 1960 to 2023 the population of Sudan increased from 7.54 million to 48.11 million.
Surely, there is a limit to human population on Earth. Ok, call it multiples of even degrowther nightmare scenarios because of scientific breakthroughs, but Earth cannot sustain any numbers of humans.
First, I disagree with many aspects of both Political parties individual ideas, but I believe we have to use only arguments of logical integrity, in making those points. Amongst salient historical points, about growth and Easter island, this article has a strange digression I wish to point out.
Irregardless, pro or con of the merits of Degrowth , there is a strange attempt to equate it to J.D. Vance rhetoric about quality American manufacturing jobs versus potential cheaper prices to all U.S. consumers from those manufactured in foreign countries (even those who openly undermine U.S. interests) primarily because they can obtain labor at drastically lesser wages. I guess, but cannot verify intent, that this statement logically has more to do with the dignity and stability of quality manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and the social benefit of taking pride in American industry, the ability not to rely on foreign supply chains, and G-d forbid, in times of sustained war to have the know how and industrial and trained labor capacity to convert factories to defense purposes.
A few months back Treasury Secretary Yellen, flagged China for expanding factory capacity well in excess of demand, (albeit from a competitive trade angle) which I note, would also enhance their potential emergency military industry capacity while shrinking ours, if our factories close. (If I had inferred by omission that Secretary Yellen made that inference, I would be using "borrowed authority" which is now a common rhetorical trick in almost any essay, from every political persuasion). RealI agree and disagree with all the candidates, and certainly have recently had, pet peeves with Youngstown rhetoric, but lets not take American made toasters out of context. Thats about perceived American interests long term, versus argued consumer savings short term.
Finally, whatever political afilliation, degrowth as an extreme means less food, or children for someone else (Bad), but materialism with no sensible self control (not state imposed) and no concern for others or future generations is not rational capitalism (good) It is maximum selfishness that becomes decrepitude . Things we really need do not require an algorithm to make us buy them, or a celebrity that uses them. Finally, like all the digressions of the article (and mine), it has very little to Do with Easter island.
I don't think badly made junk made by slaves in China IS worth one American job. I'm tired of only having access to garbage goods that don't last. I'd gladly pay more for high quality goods made by well-payed workers. We need to learn to grow and innovate without surrounding ourselves with junk.
"I'd gladly pay more for high quality goods made by well-payed workers."
Even assuming that your underlying presumptions are correct, what you would gladly pay more for probably doesn't reflect the values of most other people. So, it seems to me, your solution is taking away other people's economic choice through the force of governent.
"Old-school environmentalists right through to Greta Thunberg warn about the “limits to growth” and its consequences, including famine from overpopulation and the shortage of key natural resources. "
This kind of B.S. has been spouted for decades. Paul Ehrlich wrote a book in 1968 titled "The Population Bomb" making these same claims. He was full of it then and they're full of it now.
You don't believe there will be famine from overpopulation and there is not a shortage of key natural resources such as water, not only for humans but also other species?
And I would argue that the BS started long before 1968, heck Aldo Leopold was pointing out and recording the decline of species in the '30's.
I live in Wisconsin and believe you me, the Great Lakes are being eyed covetously by many, and it will only get worse.
Human activities do not destroy or create water; it only gets temporarily maldistributed. Coastal cities must desalinate their own supply, freeing up inland water for inland users. No need to drain the Great Lakes.
Yes, I know that regarding temporarily maldistributed.
Again, what is to be done with the many, many species that no longer have inland water, no longer can travel from watering hole to watering hole and on and on and on.
As I've continually stated on this thread, it is not just about "us". We share this planet with countless others.
The degrowth philosophy underlay a lot of 20th Century science fiction (see Star Trek's "Mark of Gideon" episode, the movie "Soylant Green" and many others). It has also been a driver of the push for birth control and unrestricted abortion. Under current population projections it won't be until late this century or the 22nd Century that people will start to realize that more people is a good thing.
Thoughtful article, though I do not in any way see your point re "right-wing degrowth". Wanting to keep jobs locally versus off shore is not , by my reckoning, even remotely related to suppressing the growth of manufacturing or for that matter humanity. It is protecting the politicians most precious asset -- the tax base! You posit that sending work off shore results in net wealth increase via lowered prices for goods, neglecting to factor the cost of loss of jobs, and the comcomitant effects of reduction of the economic multiplier. You present a hypothesis as fact that as far as I know is unproven. Respectfully submitted ....
The advent of computer modeling 25 years unleashed legions of "climate scientists" upon the world. Led by the UN which really had no purpose until the era of Climate Doomism, "we're burning up the planet." Their output was a series of IPCC reports that started the world on it's current "Carbon" boondoggle. To say the IPCC was laughably flawed does not do justice to the concept. Nonetheless bureaucrats around the world seized the banner and began what is really a degrowth plan. In time, solar, nuclear and biofuels may shoulder part of the burden of energizing a growing middle class in the developing world. There is no scenario in which continued use of petro fuels fails to play a crucial role in supporting the 2050 population of 10 bn or so. That is if the western world is going to maintain it's current standard of living and the developing world is going to get air conditioning and refrigerators. That is the ultimate goal of the degrowthers-anti-oil crazies. Until recently they have been winning-Biden/Harris-big time. The flaws in green energy are now becoming more widely known and this nonsense will be scaled back. I will end with two points. 1-Cutting carbon will have absolutely no effect on temps in 2050-humans will adapt to slightly warmer temps. 2 The Iron Law of Electricity states that once people have it, then lose it, they will burn anything to get it back.
Computer modeling is like AI today , much promise with little actual data on how effective it is , and since it's very easy to play with the models these models are always in constant flux of change and thus no one does any studies on them and thus no real data to prove if they are ever right . Pinning AI down is going to be worse in trying to determine effectiveness since it's DB is always in a state of update by design . And thus these products are a sales person dream you can claim almost anything from the results and they do . I've worked and been educated in computing for 40+ years and I've seen it all and heard it all from the sales of thus products , and these people can sell ice to Eskimos as the saying goes . So it's a buyer market beware area , and I guess that is why it's used in this climate change weather stories all the time . I have very little faith in these results and predictions in knowing where they come from .
More Diet Coke? Seriously?
Yeah, Diet Pepsi is worth saving. Diet Coke, not so much.
Agreed. Coke Zero is 1000x better.
“The paper concluded, “published research on degrowth is dominated by ideology while lacking scientific quality.” “ Wouldn’t this be true of the vast amount of current ‘research’?
It appears there was a fundamental error made in estimating past population by a factor of ten. This suggests;
(1) the methodology was flawed, and where that methodology is used elsewhere it should be questioned, or
(2) this was a story from a particular environmental world view in search of evidence, and that evidence had to show massive population decline, and so in the absence of other corroborating evidence, it was made to fit the story.
There are plenty of resources for humans alone to live on this planet, but we do not live alone. Human expansion disrupts the resources of the other animals that live here with us. Large carnivores are often forced into interaction with humans, putting both in danger. And the disruption of our natural ecosystems has contributed to the changing climate that many on the left have been crying about.
it's not about whether humans can be supported, it's about can we live in harmony with the rest of the planet. As we increase our numbers, the answer is increasingly no.
Two things:
a) I have read that the food growing land is not optimal there and a huge portion of the pollution was forced to participate in building the statues ... so there were fewer to work the land and produce food.
b) Population growth past a resources-balanced point is absolutely detrimental to populations and nations and there are many examples. More population means less for each person yet more consumption of natural resources like cutting trees, water, agricultural land, etc. Where resources are limited and disappear the impact can be catastrophic.
Haiti is one example. In 1960 the population was 4 million, in 2023 near 12 million ... The island did not get bigger, more food, water or wood producing resources did not magically appeared .... There is simply increasingly much less for each person as their population grows.
Take Sudan too, a desert nation with little water and no forests, that has been in a horrific tribal/religious war for decades in large part over the sharing of resources. From 1960 to 2023 the population of Sudan increased from 7.54 million to 48.11 million.
This is a growth of 537.7 percent in 63 years.
Can I get a specious factoid?
The author sounds like some sort of nouveau nihilist who has a handle on truth based on a magazine article.
Re: There’s a right-wing version of degrowth too
The author seems to be conflating the preservation of a national industrial base with degrowth.
Degrowth and world government are false opposites.
A plastic bag over your face is not the opposite of air,
One can oppose world government and still oppose degrowth.
Surely, there is a limit to human population on Earth. Ok, call it multiples of even degrowther nightmare scenarios because of scientific breakthroughs, but Earth cannot sustain any numbers of humans.
First, I disagree with many aspects of both Political parties individual ideas, but I believe we have to use only arguments of logical integrity, in making those points. Amongst salient historical points, about growth and Easter island, this article has a strange digression I wish to point out.
Irregardless, pro or con of the merits of Degrowth , there is a strange attempt to equate it to J.D. Vance rhetoric about quality American manufacturing jobs versus potential cheaper prices to all U.S. consumers from those manufactured in foreign countries (even those who openly undermine U.S. interests) primarily because they can obtain labor at drastically lesser wages. I guess, but cannot verify intent, that this statement logically has more to do with the dignity and stability of quality manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and the social benefit of taking pride in American industry, the ability not to rely on foreign supply chains, and G-d forbid, in times of sustained war to have the know how and industrial and trained labor capacity to convert factories to defense purposes.
A few months back Treasury Secretary Yellen, flagged China for expanding factory capacity well in excess of demand, (albeit from a competitive trade angle) which I note, would also enhance their potential emergency military industry capacity while shrinking ours, if our factories close. (If I had inferred by omission that Secretary Yellen made that inference, I would be using "borrowed authority" which is now a common rhetorical trick in almost any essay, from every political persuasion). RealI agree and disagree with all the candidates, and certainly have recently had, pet peeves with Youngstown rhetoric, but lets not take American made toasters out of context. Thats about perceived American interests long term, versus argued consumer savings short term.
Finally, whatever political afilliation, degrowth as an extreme means less food, or children for someone else (Bad), but materialism with no sensible self control (not state imposed) and no concern for others or future generations is not rational capitalism (good) It is maximum selfishness that becomes decrepitude . Things we really need do not require an algorithm to make us buy them, or a celebrity that uses them. Finally, like all the digressions of the article (and mine), it has very little to Do with Easter island.
I don't think badly made junk made by slaves in China IS worth one American job. I'm tired of only having access to garbage goods that don't last. I'd gladly pay more for high quality goods made by well-payed workers. We need to learn to grow and innovate without surrounding ourselves with junk.
"I'd gladly pay more for high quality goods made by well-payed workers."
Even assuming that your underlying presumptions are correct, what you would gladly pay more for probably doesn't reflect the values of most other people. So, it seems to me, your solution is taking away other people's economic choice through the force of governent.
It is the only thing that really exists.
"The paper concluded, “published research on degrowth is dominated by ideology while lacking scientific quality.” "
You don't tell me.
"Old-school environmentalists right through to Greta Thunberg warn about the “limits to growth” and its consequences, including famine from overpopulation and the shortage of key natural resources. "
This kind of B.S. has been spouted for decades. Paul Ehrlich wrote a book in 1968 titled "The Population Bomb" making these same claims. He was full of it then and they're full of it now.
Ehrlich was on 60 Minutes recently !!!!!!
They are still listening to him , it boggles the mind.
You don't believe there will be famine from overpopulation and there is not a shortage of key natural resources such as water, not only for humans but also other species?
And I would argue that the BS started long before 1968, heck Aldo Leopold was pointing out and recording the decline of species in the '30's.
I live in Wisconsin and believe you me, the Great Lakes are being eyed covetously by many, and it will only get worse.
Human activities do not destroy or create water; it only gets temporarily maldistributed. Coastal cities must desalinate their own supply, freeing up inland water for inland users. No need to drain the Great Lakes.
Yes, I know that regarding temporarily maldistributed.
Again, what is to be done with the many, many species that no longer have inland water, no longer can travel from watering hole to watering hole and on and on and on.
As I've continually stated on this thread, it is not just about "us". We share this planet with countless others.