Degrowth

947 readers

26 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

MrMakabar@slrpnk.net

Genuine question - is degrowth compatible with human nature? (slrpnk.net)

submitted 6 days ago by RideAgainstTheLizard@slrpnk.net to c/degrowth@slrpnk.net

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Degrowth is a noble ideal to strive for, and it would certainly mitigate a lot of our current problems if implemented. However, I fear that it is an ideal that can be adopted by the few but not the many. Growth, progress and personal ambition are inherent human traits - it may not be the case for all people, but it is certainly evident in today's society and many societies that have come before. In my opinion, we need solutions and frameworks that most (if not all) personalities can exist within. I worry degrowth is wishful thinking, and would love to hear your thoughts.

All of that said - I believe it is a very worthwhile thought exercise and even if all degrowth principles cannot be implemented, some can and that is what matters.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 8 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Throughout most of human history economic growth was nearly not a thing on a global scale. Obviously some cities, states and individuals ended up with economic growth, but not even close to what we saw in the last two centuries. Before that with hunter gatherers it was basically economic stagnation for thousands of years.

Most personal growth is really about gaining status within the group. In our society it is mainly about making more money. However there are also a lot of paths, which have much less to do with money. Artists gain fame from their art, politicans from the position in the political hierachy and scientists from the discoveries they made. All of that is also status in the group and could replace a lot of wealth.

[–] RideAgainstTheLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I'm not sure how useful this exercise is, but I like to boil things down to the basic "cavepeople fighting for survival scenario".

In this scenario, art is irrelevant. So are any politicians that don't offer immediate results such as more food or more water.

What matters is survival by means of effectively allocating resources and defending those resources. This is where ambition comes in.

These drives don't go away when survival is no longer at risk. They are inherent to our being because they ensure our survival. Unfortunately, we also love excess.

I fear the current system exists because our nature has resulted in it existing.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Hunter gatheres did work about 20h per week to survive. That is also why hunter gatheres were able to commit quite a few resources to things like art. We do see rock paintings pretty much all over the world. Totem poles in the Pacific Northwest come from hunter gatherer socities and a lot of other cultures have created similar works. To be fair most of the time they just hang out, which seems to be rather human.

[–] RideAgainstTheLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago

Thank you for sharing!

[–] Jonnsy@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 days ago

What makes you believe art was irrelevant back then. And there might not have been politicians but still some kind of structure or social hierarchy.

load more comments (1 replies)