You quote "Degrowth is a designed reduction..." but when there's "accidental" degrowth, you think the mess isn't to do with "accidental" versus "designed"? To me the fact that something that should be designed has poor outcomes when it happens accidentally (landing a plane, putting a dog to sleep, having a vasectomy) isn't unexpected, and I generally feel it's the "accident" part that causes problems. I suspect you don't generally consider the poor outcomes of an accident to be an accurate reflection of what would occur when something goes to plan according to it's design (c'mon, you know how nutty that would make you sound for literally anything else!). So why try to make that an argument here?
The problem is what governments and businesses would agree to a designed reduction in economic activity? Who would make sure people living in poverty had some prospect of improving their lives? I may be cynical but I can't foresee a moment (even after the house is burning down) where we have the political will.
Jerry, I have been enjoying your EarthWatch postings, and am impressed by your the depth of your reading and understanding. However today's posting is not your best. The points you bring up are very pertinent, but you seem to skate over them, and I would appreciate a more in-depth article on these issues. We must all understand the major shift that is coming as we move to a post capitalist society. Can you re-visit the de-growth topic with more insight? All the best, Peter
Thank you, Peter. You are among my dearest friends and I love you enormously. I think our point of departure is that you believe we are moving to a "post-capitalist" society and I do not. Or, at least, I hope not. Like Winston Churchill, I believe that capitalism is the worse economic system ever invented except for everything else. I want to see a fairer more just form of capitalism in which rich governments and corporations pay a much larger share. I want to see income more equitably distributed. I want the world to be Norway. But, if we've learned anything from the past year of holing up in our little security blanket it is that the poorest and most vulnerable don't have that luxury.
I tend to agree with both Winston and your good self. However, clearly we have two options: to bury our heads in the sand (and pretend that we can go on for ever despoiling the planet and putting off until tomorrow the necessary remedies), or debate creatively how to move forward with a revised vision (that will include the less fortunate people who share the planet with us). I believe that your article raised the later option, and I commend you for it. Call it capitalism Part 2, or whatever you want, but don't paint everybody who does not join the Koch brother's bandwagon a radical. On a personal note; were I to vociferously be anticapitalist, I believe that you could fairly call me a hypocrite. Rather, like you I believe, I would like to engage in dialogue to better prepare for a future that is upon us more quickly than we anticipated. Best, Peter.
You quote "Degrowth is a designed reduction..." but when there's "accidental" degrowth, you think the mess isn't to do with "accidental" versus "designed"? To me the fact that something that should be designed has poor outcomes when it happens accidentally (landing a plane, putting a dog to sleep, having a vasectomy) isn't unexpected, and I generally feel it's the "accident" part that causes problems. I suspect you don't generally consider the poor outcomes of an accident to be an accurate reflection of what would occur when something goes to plan according to it's design (c'mon, you know how nutty that would make you sound for literally anything else!). So why try to make that an argument here?
The problem is what governments and businesses would agree to a designed reduction in economic activity? Who would make sure people living in poverty had some prospect of improving their lives? I may be cynical but I can't foresee a moment (even after the house is burning down) where we have the political will.
Jerry, I have been enjoying your EarthWatch postings, and am impressed by your the depth of your reading and understanding. However today's posting is not your best. The points you bring up are very pertinent, but you seem to skate over them, and I would appreciate a more in-depth article on these issues. We must all understand the major shift that is coming as we move to a post capitalist society. Can you re-visit the de-growth topic with more insight? All the best, Peter
Thank you, Peter. You are among my dearest friends and I love you enormously. I think our point of departure is that you believe we are moving to a "post-capitalist" society and I do not. Or, at least, I hope not. Like Winston Churchill, I believe that capitalism is the worse economic system ever invented except for everything else. I want to see a fairer more just form of capitalism in which rich governments and corporations pay a much larger share. I want to see income more equitably distributed. I want the world to be Norway. But, if we've learned anything from the past year of holing up in our little security blanket it is that the poorest and most vulnerable don't have that luxury.
Jerry.
I tend to agree with both Winston and your good self. However, clearly we have two options: to bury our heads in the sand (and pretend that we can go on for ever despoiling the planet and putting off until tomorrow the necessary remedies), or debate creatively how to move forward with a revised vision (that will include the less fortunate people who share the planet with us). I believe that your article raised the later option, and I commend you for it. Call it capitalism Part 2, or whatever you want, but don't paint everybody who does not join the Koch brother's bandwagon a radical. On a personal note; were I to vociferously be anticapitalist, I believe that you could fairly call me a hypocrite. Rather, like you I believe, I would like to engage in dialogue to better prepare for a future that is upon us more quickly than we anticipated. Best, Peter.