Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hacker News" data-source="post: 72755" data-attributes="member: 365">About a year ago I stumbled upon the degrowth concept and subsequently picked up the book &quot;Degrowth: Less is More&quot; by Jason Hickel. For those unfamiliar with the term: &quot;an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to finite planetary boundaries&quot;.[1]There's been some of HN posts mentioning degrowth in the past but they were heavily criticized[2][3]. I get some degrowthist literature might seem too apocalyptic, but they make some good points:- Criticism of &quot;decoupling&quot;: there's no way of our GDP keeps growing indefinitely while reducing our ecological footprint. In fact, despite all the advancements made in renewables during the past decades global CO2 emissions are at an all-time high.- Very few people know how to build/grow anything end to end. Consumerism appears to be the only way to live in the West right now (with it, a shared feeling of powerlessness).At the same time, I stumble upon articles from time to time that are indirectly aligned with the same ideas although from an entirely different perspective. These couple of HN posts come to mind:- &quot;The super-rich 'preppers' planning to save themselves&quot; [4]- &quot;I, Pencil (1958)&quot; [5]- &quot;CO2 emissions are being 'outsourced' by rich countries to rising economies&quot;[6] (The Guardian, not HN)I gotta admit, this has me pretty worried. However I also have hope (and with hope, it comes action). Questions that I'd like to get input on from the HN community:1. Am I overly paranoid for believing this? (degrowth seems like our only way out)2. Is believing technology will save us from climate collapse really that, a belief? Believing this would mean society should keep doing its thing for a tiny tiny chance of getting a free &quot;get out of jail&quot; card (i.e. decoupling is not a fable after all).3. On the other hand, if we know it's a belief: why aren't our so-called leaders doing anything real about it (albeit at the cost of GDP), are they just trying to prevent widespread panic? I see how this might sound a bit &quot;conspiranoic&quot; but i can't just find better words for it...4. Regardless of the answer to the question above on #2, why aren't people actively building resilient hyperlocal communities and actively ignore what brought us here in the first place? I.e. globalization and widespread consumerism4.1. Low-tech, no-tech initiatives seem pretty plausible to me (provided we leave aside our current individualistic values as a society)[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth</a>[2]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32416815" target="_blank">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32416815</a>[3]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20058894" target="_blank">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20058894</a>[4]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32711413" target="_blank">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32711413</a>[5]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13016980" target="_blank">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13016980</a>[6]: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/19/co2-emissions-outsourced-rich-nations-rising-economies" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/19/co2-emissions-outsourced-rich-nations-rising-economies</a><hr />Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33311067" target="_blank">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33311067</a>Points: 31# Comments: 5<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33311067" target="_blank">Continue reading...</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hacker News, post: 72755, member: 365"] About a year ago I stumbled upon the degrowth concept and subsequently picked up the book "Degrowth: Less is More" by Jason Hickel. For those unfamiliar with the term: "an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to finite planetary boundaries".[1] There's been some of HN posts mentioning degrowth in the past but they were heavily criticized[2][3]. I get some degrowthist literature might seem too apocalyptic, but they make some good points: - Criticism of "decoupling": there's no way of our GDP keeps growing indefinitely [I]while[/I] reducing our ecological footprint. In fact, despite all the advancements made in renewables during the past decades global CO2 emissions are at an all-time high. - Very few people know how to build/grow anything end to end. Consumerism appears to be the only way to live in the West right now (with it, a shared feeling of powerlessness). At the same time, I stumble upon articles from time to time that are indirectly aligned with the same ideas although from an entirely different perspective. These couple of HN posts come to mind: - "The super-rich 'preppers' planning to save themselves" [4] - "I, Pencil (1958)" [5] - "CO2 emissions are being 'outsourced' by rich countries to rising economies"[6] (The Guardian, not HN) I gotta admit, this has me pretty worried. However I also have hope (and with hope, it comes action). Questions that I'd like to get input on from the HN community: 1. Am I overly paranoid for believing this? (degrowth [I]seems[/I] like our only way out) 2. Is believing technology will save us from climate collapse really that, a [I]belief[/I]? Believing this would mean society should keep doing its thing for a tiny tiny chance of getting a free "get out of jail" card (i.e. decoupling is not a fable after all). 3. On the other hand, if we [I]know[/I] it's a belief: why aren't our so-called leaders doing anything [I]real[/I] about it (albeit at the cost of GDP), are they just trying to prevent widespread panic? I see how this might sound a bit "conspiranoic" but i can't just find better words for it... 4. Regardless of the answer to the question above on #2, why aren't people actively building resilient hyperlocal communities and actively ignore what brought us here in the first place? I.e. globalization and widespread consumerism 4.1. Low-tech, no-tech initiatives seem pretty plausible to me (provided we leave aside our current individualistic values as a society) [1]: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth[/URL] [2]: [URL]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32416815[/URL] [3]: [URL]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20058894[/URL] [4]: [URL]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32711413[/URL] [5]: [URL]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13016980[/URL] [6]: [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/19/co2-emissions-outsourced-rich-nations-rising-economies[/URL] [HR][/HR] Comments URL: [URL]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33311067[/URL] Points: 31 # Comments: 5 [url="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33311067"]Continue reading...[/url] [/QUOTE]

Verification