I wanna know who is the bilionaire who will stop gathering money for this to happen. People for the most part have very few, while rich people collects car, poor people can't afford one, will you donate yours?
Perpetual growth is a problem and we need to slow down. To the extent that the wealthiest 10% are responsible for 50% of emissions they are the ones that are creating the growth, the majority are already in degrowth and need to adopt those degrowth solutions. Rising inequality is making that ever more difficult. Like it or not degrowth for the masses is already here and has been for the last decade and more. Alternatively, degrowth will begin to take off when countries start cutting food exports forcing others to grow their own. Not every country will be able to do this as some are net importers which leaves the question how do net importers of food trade? Degrowth in the localism sense makes a lot of sense but it is not a universal solution as far as I can see but certainly should be pushed at a local level where possible. Other ideas of degrowth are adopting intermediate technology, tools libraries/library of things, right to repair etc. Another barrier to degrowth is the interconnectedness of markets that rely on so many raw materials. Right to repair, intermediate technology and libraries of things help slow this at the individual, household and community level and indeed it can increase resilience if we tie that in to food production and local resources. For larger technology / plant this model is limited.
The problem is not economic. It's government policy, specifically spending on things government has no business spending money on and now the bills are due. All the rest of the noise is a smoke screen: Capitalism is bad, America is so divided, Guns are the problem, and so on. So why is government the problem? Because they need more money to service our ever growing debt (standing well over 34T). Because of that they need more inflation and higher taxes than ever to cover the interest on existing debt. More tax grabs are coming and much more inflation. This cycle will continue until the government is held responsible for their reckless behavior. For most of the past 75 years government spending as a % of GDP has ranged between 40% and 60%. Then Obama showed up and spending went to 95-100+% during his tenure and since he left it's never been below 100% and is now in the 120-130% range. No administration (not even our congress people) have the political will to correct this behavior because it means stopping to pay for bailouts, entitlement programs, our voluminous and never ending proxy wars (sometimes even outright wars), our police state (HHS and TFA)...and the list goes on and on. Government needs to do what they were always instituted for and really not much more. That is education, infrastructure, border security, and protection from foreign invasions. Instead government has embedded itself into every single industry and knows how to do nothing but grow itself and grow its spending. If left unchecked, they will ruin this country. None of these issues has anything to do with capitalism, it's our elected (and more so our unelected) government officials acting like our money is theirs to do what they want with it.
This video was big on buzzwords and very light on actual details. "No set script" seems to mean no actual economic theories or proposals that can be scrutinized and/or actualized. Revolutions aren't built on ecological or sociological theories alone.
I think it's more that the specific methods of enacting degrowth would vary depending on the location and context, such as what type of economy a country has. But also it's a 4 minute introduction to degrowth meant to be accessible to everyone, it was never going to be a super in depth
That's because if they told you their actual plans, it would be obvious it's genocide that serves to prolong the illegitimate rule of the upper owning classes.
The WHOLE POINT is to NOT focus on money/"economics" , but to focus on sustaining the earth and it's biological and physical functions and THEN sort out our role to live while caretaking the earth!
Gdp counts costs plus profit. You can see it in any calculation system from Profit oriented companies. This is the reason why some Economists Talk about Profit based Inflation. Rest is top noch explained. Imagine a country without the right to any Profit.
I recommend moving to a country with low emissions per capita. Anywhere in Africa will do. That's the simplest way to reduce your carbon footprint, and it looks a lot like how the end state of degrowth will look anyways.
@@Kitkat-986 I don't think mass migration to countries previously ravished by colonialism is fair to those countries. They don't need more white people/outsiders taking up land, gentrifying, displacing them out because of their low carbon footprint.
@@ivonniebaby for research, startup u need wealthy investors.. Who will fund loss making startups? Remeber tesla remain loss making foorr 8 years... Same with uber etc
@@ramraghuwanshi2562 tesla made a loss and so did uber, tesla still makes a loss I believe. they get funded because of speculation. businesses (although they'll be incredibly different in a non-growth based economy) will be funded still.
So if we all want to get paid to "take care our grandparents ", and if work is voluntary...then who is going to work? When that system fails...who is going to make us work? Of course the government will have to step in and force our unarmed society to work (under the guise of reducing theft for the common good) and "Welcome communism!"
@@aleccino truly the sad thing about it all. Without a fundamental change in how we view things as societies, aka capitalistic, technological advances will lead to even more consumption.
@@ottiliaottilia yep. We're all conditioned to care most about whether the line is going up. And it would need to be a global effort to change, because only one/a few countries pursuing degrowth will just mean the other countries will dominate the markets. I think a 4 or even 3 day work week is a step in the right direction which I believe is working swimmingly in Scandinavia but there's just so much needed to make a real change. All looking bleak basically.
It's hard to be a capitalist alternative when you describe it in capitalist language. Even the term degrowth is just saying your anti-capitalist it's not something new.
@@aleccino Shortening lifespans is not something we should promote. It will cause unbelievable levels of backlash. We need to point out that degrowth has absolutely nothing to do with how long you live.
this is actually not true for rich countries. Take the US for example, rises in GDP have gone simultaneously with an decrease in life expectancy in recent years. Degrowth is about how can we effectively and justly improve the wellbeing of people and species whilst staying within the planetary boundaries. Degrowth does not mean we have to return to some medieval style of living when the lifespan was only 30 years. We can still use our modern healthcare and have access to lots of nutritious foods (which are the main factors that lengthened our lifespans).
@@miriamwatchingyoutube Modern healthcare needs modern technologies, which is very ungreen. Herbal hippie medicine can't kill cancer cells, but expensive medical machinery can.
Systemic solution: Take the power to create money, out of this air, as debt, with interest, out of private hands, the banks, and hand that power back to the people, the state, which can issue debt free money, “in sums sufficient to satisfy the needs of the consumer” (President Lincoln) and in doing so, remove the need for GDP growth by removing the need to pay for the intrinsic interest, and fund a green new deal, international peace force, UBI and end gross inequality. Sovereign Money. See the Positive Money campaign.
So beautiful and necessary, and still so unrealistic. Is there any theory how to accomplish degrwoth and keep it in a stable state? I mean, as soon as one participant starts growing again, he will soon have the majority of power, and the competition for growth is up again.
The way I understand it is that through co-ops and variety of different kinds of collectivization, any type of exploitative growth is systemically prevented; leadership roles would simply be a division of labour, rather than an unaccountable position of power. And through a cultural shift that could accompany this new economy, anyone that breaks its harmony would be ostracized, illegal, doomed to fail or all of the above. Just speculating here though haha
It is literally thermodynamically impossible to continue even a 2-3% growth for the next 100 years on Earth. That said, degrowth is a nuanced topic and must be approached carefully. The name is also quite bad optics-wise.
@@simonpetrikov3992hat’s the reason a cultural shift is so necessary… but also so difficult because a lot of our physical, built environment (suburbs & McMansions) are literally made to facilitate gratuitous consumption
Exactly. They like to imagine just us plebs as the serfs and they get to be the ones living it up on a plantation. The New American Dream justifying financial tyranny: YOU TOO can become a neo-feudal rentier! Join our program and we promise we'll remember you when the roundups begin!
Human rights and freedoms do not involve capital, except in the US where conservatives managed to get property included in the constitution, and when the Supreme Court rules the money was speech. Conceptually, freedom does not have to be the absence of constraint, but should be seen as the capability for, which is better described as positive freedom. We can also think of a shift from quantitative growth to qualitative growth. This all shows that decarbonization is itself a deeply political agenda because it takes for granted the current economic model Since there has to date, been no reduction in the rate of emissions, or in atmospheric carbon following a failed strategy is a guarantee of failure. A decrease in production and consumption, through degrowth is the only civilized path path forward.
The founding Fathers were the one who had property added to the constitution as part of the bill of rights because in classical liberalism There's a thing called Individual rights which includes property rights or did Karl Marx have a point in say the Liberal view of rights is bad because it was decreeing the rights of the selfish man Note: he does actually say something like this in one of his books but to sum it up in a sentence. "Individualism dumb because people are never monads"
USA agriculture is producing 2,5x than in 1950 but using _LESS_ land (for example). Degrowth not only leads to poverty, it's also based on assumptions that are not true. We produce more exploiting LESS thanks to innovation and technology, that's the only path. If we embrace degrowth=less production. Less production=less wages& scarcity of goods = purchasing power of citizens falls= poverty. Now look how much do poor countries contaminate, do you want that? I'm pretty sure you dont. With more poverty, people stop caring about environtment and start thinking more about their own future (food, shelter, clothes, a better jobs, children education, etc) and then the contamination cycle restarts. That's why it's better to just incentivize technology and innovation and renewable energy + nuclear energy: there's no other way to take more care of the planet
Not all growth is bad. What about scientific growth? That's important for treating and curing disease, allowing people to live longer and healthier. And as nice as bottom-up grassroots initiatives are some things just can't be handled that way. You don't think a community cooperative is going to discover the cure for HIV or cancer, do you? EDIT: Another thing, landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127 There is enough land for either solar or offshore wind alone to power the energy needs of the entire Earth alone. If the entire Sahara desert were solar panels it would produce 18x what is necessary. If governments only had the political will we could do away with fossil fuels as well as dangerous nuclear fission within the next few years. If we recognized climate change as the threat that it is governments could demand the construction of enough solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal plants to meet energy needs. This would require us to tax a lot, but it would be worth it. If necessary we could limit costs by making mandatory, participation in helping to construct renewable energy plants or in helping to mine (or recycle from previous structures) or transport the materials required to build the plants. We have jury duty, why not a duty to participate in saving the planet? The government could also impose price controls for any materials bought when bought by a licensed government agent for the sole purpose of contributing to building the plants. To avoid the cost of eminent domain takings the government could just make the operation of fossil fuel or nuclear power plants illegal without buying the property. It wouldn't be illegal right away, it would only become illegal once the renewable energy plants were up and running. Before the renewable energy plants are up and running make shutting down the power plants illegal to prevent them from playing any games.
A lot of cancers would disappear if we stopped polluting our air, water, food and bodies with synthetic chemicals, electromagnetic radiation etc. Similarly HIV could be contained and eventually eradicated if more people stopped GROWING the human polution with sexual intercourse. So even these two diseases are symptoms of the growth economy. As for renewables, unfortunately alone they are not a complete solution because they're not always available. Watch this lecture: ua-cam.com/video/N-yALPEpV4w/v-deo.html
Aside from us not having the resources and capacity to create all those solar panels or wind turbines, solar and wind power are too inconsistent to actually power a national electric grid. Without nuclear, we would need backup power sources to cover peaks in demand or dips in supply. Those backup power sources are currently some of the dirtiest energy plants in developed nations: coal, oil, natural gas. If we wanted to avoid the need for nuclear or backup, we would need an estimated 14 days of battery reserves. Our current capacity? 47 minutes, if we pull every car battery out and hook them up to the grid.
If the Sahara desert were filled with solar panels, third world countries would be entirely destroyed from increased imperialist resource extraction, and then the Sahara would become a giant polluted trash heap after a decade or so. Completely fantastical, unrealistic idealism that would kill millions and only prolong our current dystopia.
A lot of what was claimed in this video is factually incorrect. In the United States, the rich are getting richer, but the poor are also getting richer. Also, starvation-level poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970 around the world, thanks to Capitalism. I recommend getting your economics from an actual economist. Thomas Sowell, the well known economist, has written extensively on these issues. As for pollution, sure, we should have some regulations. But the claim that carbon dioxide is going to cause an apocalypse is not justified by the science. Many want to claim that "97%" of Climate Scientists "agree," but these studies are suspect for a number of reasons, and despite what Left-wing politicians claim, none of these studies have ever asked scientists about the severity of the problem. There is a big difference between saying that humans are causing significant warming, and saying that this warming will be dramatically harmful to the health of the planet.
The IPCC (the synthesis of the global scientific community on climate) regularly issues many hundreds of pages of reports focusing precisely on the severity of the problem... from water shortages to ocean acidification and of course species mass extinction which is now occurring. How sick does the patient have to be before you admit it might be unhealthy?
Yea great mate, just one massive problem of our ecological footprint being higher than the earth's bio capacity. Not a partisan issue or at least shouldn't be eejit
It's interesting how you say the author of the video should listen to the scientists when it comes to the economy but then turn around and question the validity of climate science. You clearly haven't spent much time studying climate science.
Wow. I can't believe this is a thing. No sense of economic reality what so ever. 1) global amount of people living in poverty has decreased dramatically 2) as green energy sources become cheaper, the adoption rate will increase 3) you used household income data for the U.S. Which is misleading bc as people make more money they tend to decrease the sizes of households, such as choosing to live without a roommate, which leads to shrinking household income when individual income actually rises. There are a lot of fallacies in this video, I feel that a focus on how to reduce carbon emissions would have been a lot more relevant and beneficial.
1) How do you measure poverty? Usually "poor" families used to have everything so sustain themselves around, but once the "developed" economy comes around they of course get involved into wage labour relations, giving them more money than they had before but less thing since they used to possess them but now they have to pay for them. 2) IF more and more people will adopt more and more green energy sources, more and more raw materials will decrease possibly bringing them to a "peak oil" kid of situation. It is happening already with those precious metals that compose our PCs and smartphones for example. 3) Living without a roomate is actually less consuming that living alone. Think: 2 people living together use the same sink, which is composed by a certain amount of steel etc., 2 people living apart use double the material to make a sink, since they possess two of them, and the same amount of water if the lived together. You can apply the same logic to many other object within the household. Thus living together will indeed mean less material used. I hope I made my point, just ask if you don't understand one of the abovementioned points. Take care
OzurrPaluch 3) his point is not that “living with a roommate is more consuming”. His point is that using household income data does not show the true improvements in wealth of the lower income portion of americans
The last utopian dream that the world actually bought spurred massive economic growth but kept the distribution of benefits extremely unequal, all for the low cost of irreparable environmental degradation, and our souls
Great atmosphere. Super positive. What we need is this kind of narrative to take climate change from scary nightmare to bright future. Thanks! Really well done. :)
This is a really bad introductory video that seems to be targeted at people who already agree with all premises and conclusions and have already been taught a very specific perspective on economics. I'm new to this concept but I must admit it doesn't make any sense to me. This whole theory of degrowth seems to be based on a rather one-dimensional perspective on economies and completely dismisses the complexity of local, national, and global markets as well as neglecting any and all supply and demand dynamics. For example, the simple fact that if products that have been cheap for a long time become more expensive, less people will buy them which in turn will yield less income for the company which in turn will yield less income for the workers. The utopia of paying people for care work also doesn't make sense to me since you didn't explain where that money should come from and who will pay those people. I'm gonna continue to research this topic but so far, this is already the 2nd video that didn't explain any explicit practical scenarios of how implemented degrowth could actually work over long periods of time without the need of a dictatorship.
Replies to this video form economists, American style libertarians, and "conservatives" include the following comments: Damn crazy socialists! What if I can't get a brand new iPhone every six months that differs little from my current iPhone? What if I can't get an ever-larger SUV to transport the boat I don't own up them mountain where I don't live (credit: Jon Stewart)? Bah, humbug! My personal magic sky fairy of my choice made this planet just for me, so I get to use as much as I want of whatever I want. Also, what about innovation? If I don't have the opportunity to get Bezos-rich with my orange juice venture, why would I start my business? Jobs lost, commies! You're all just jealous of billionaires! Bwahhhh!!!!
Actually quite the opposite, an education that perfectly sedates and programs the middle classes into being ideologically aligned with the ruling class, filling their heads with fantasies and magical thoughts of a false utopia where we all own nothing and are happy. The only logical end of capitalism was here, neo feudal degrowth fascism.
You left out the fact that human population also increased with economic growth. That has something to do with the depressed wages of the lower class. Don't jump on the blame the rich bandwagon for depressed wages.
@@sincerosc We are already starving the world's poor needlessly. There is food enough, but it's not "profitable enough" to feed them. In places where girls get enough schooling to have a career other than motherhood, and where contraceptives are available, families are already smaller than they used to be. Several european countries are expecting population-shrink. If you can't get a steady job that pays enough for you to afford decent housing, you probably won't choose to have a third child
Let me get this straight. According to this, it'd be better to cut every orange in half and just throw it away. That way Oj is twice the price and more people can't afford it. Why stop there? Mandate cars get no more than 10mpg. Driving is too cheap/efficient. Replace all laundry detergent with mud. So people are properly motivated to wash by hand, they'd probably just use those extra hours saved figuring out ways of making goods and services that people want to live and be happy more affordable, the bastards.
Yep. These people have no grounding in material reality. Pure idealism as they continue to frame 'consumerism' as the great evil, like the good little degrowth social fascist hyper capitalists they are.
@@marquisl2313 newsflash: we've been socialist for almost a century. All the developed world has. They're now trying to transition to fascism/"degrowth communism." It's time for the American people to learn history and that historically, pro growth communism was not a left or right wing agenda, but a new paradigm that reorganized a nation to put its working class people in power OVER the owning classes. This is what china has and why they have easily overtaken us. If we don't embrace proletarian liberty communism, we're going to be forced into neo-feudal degrowth communism which will make CIA/Nazi horror stories of Stalin look like kiddie fun land.
@@p24p14 Oh, the de growth nerd in the video is not basing his crap on socialism? People can take Fridays off, be paid for taking care of their ageing parents, farm co opts. Spread the wealth around a little better. Some one needs to take an econ course, bruh.
That's like filling your house with carbon monoxide (a colourless, odourless gas) and saying there's no pollution problem just because the air inside your house looks clean and you don't smell anything strange... meanwhile everyone is lying dead in the next room.
I wanna know who is the bilionaire who will stop gathering money for this to happen. People for the most part have very few, while rich people collects car, poor people can't afford one, will you donate yours?
@@SR-kd4wi 🤦🏿
Perpetual growth is a problem and we need to slow down. To the extent that the wealthiest 10% are responsible for 50% of emissions they are the ones that are creating the growth, the majority are already in degrowth and need to adopt those degrowth solutions. Rising inequality is making that ever more difficult. Like it or not degrowth for the masses is already here and has been for the last decade and more.
Alternatively, degrowth will begin to take off when countries start cutting food exports forcing others to grow their own. Not every country will be able to do this as some are net importers which leaves the question how do net importers of food trade? Degrowth in the localism sense makes a lot of sense but it is not a universal solution as far as I can see but certainly should be pushed at a local level where possible.
Other ideas of degrowth are adopting intermediate technology, tools libraries/library of things, right to repair etc.
Another barrier to degrowth is the interconnectedness of markets that rely on so many raw materials. Right to repair, intermediate technology and libraries of things help slow this at the individual, household and community level and indeed it can increase resilience if we tie that in to food production and local resources. For larger technology / plant this model is limited.
Blissful high energy activism. I'm drinking it up.
Never believe people advocating for degrowth
Depravation is never the answer.
State enforced poverty. There, that's the whole explanation.
The problem is not economic. It's government policy, specifically spending on things government has no business spending money on and now the bills are due. All the rest of the noise is a smoke screen: Capitalism is bad, America is so divided, Guns are the problem, and so on. So why is government the problem? Because they need more money to service our ever growing debt (standing well over 34T). Because of that they need more inflation and higher taxes than ever to cover the interest on existing debt. More tax grabs are coming and much more inflation. This cycle will continue until the government is held responsible for their reckless behavior. For most of the past 75 years government spending as a % of GDP has ranged between 40% and 60%. Then Obama showed up and spending went to 95-100+% during his tenure and since he left it's never been below 100% and is now in the 120-130% range. No administration (not even our congress people) have the political will to correct this behavior because it means stopping to pay for bailouts, entitlement programs, our voluminous and never ending proxy wars (sometimes even outright wars), our police state (HHS and TFA)...and the list goes on and on. Government needs to do what they were always instituted for and really not much more. That is education, infrastructure, border security, and protection from foreign invasions. Instead government has embedded itself into every single industry and knows how to do nothing but grow itself and grow its spending. If left unchecked, they will ruin this country. None of these issues has anything to do with capitalism, it's our elected (and more so our unelected) government officials acting like our money is theirs to do what they want with it.
This video was big on buzzwords and very light on actual details. "No set script" seems to mean no actual economic theories or proposals that can be scrutinized and/or actualized. Revolutions aren't built on ecological or sociological theories alone.
I think it's more that the specific methods of enacting degrowth would vary depending on the location and context, such as what type of economy a country has. But also it's a 4 minute introduction to degrowth meant to be accessible to everyone, it was never going to be a super in depth
That's because if they told you their actual plans, it would be obvious it's genocide that serves to prolong the illegitimate rule of the upper owning classes.
The WHOLE POINT is to NOT focus on money/"economics" , but to focus on sustaining the earth and it's biological and physical functions and THEN sort out our role to live while caretaking the earth!
u make me feel some type of way bro
4:20 beautiful smile
green anarchism and communalism
Green fascism* and global neoconservative Trotskyism*
Yes.
Hopefully you’re joking, otherwise you’re on a dangerous road
Gdp counts costs plus profit. You can see it in any calculation system from Profit oriented companies. This is the reason why some Economists Talk about Profit based Inflation. Rest is top noch explained.
Imagine a country without the right to any Profit.
Maybe they don't want countries to profit
The Jevons Coal question, yeah.
So basically you don't want us to have orange juice?
Excellent and specific infornation all 8 billion of us should understand and act upon in our global communities.
People are inherently lazy. Which means we are inherently sustainable. That's awesome! I'm going to celebrate by smoking a joint and taking a nap!
very interested in this movement - can anyone recommend groups to join (in Canada)? getting together to start something?
I recommend moving to a country with low emissions per capita. Anywhere in Africa will do. That's the simplest way to reduce your carbon footprint, and it looks a lot like how the end state of degrowth will look anyways.
@@Kitkat-986 I don't think mass migration to countries previously ravished by colonialism is fair to those countries. They don't need more white people/outsiders taking up land, gentrifying, displacing them out because of their low carbon footprint.
But if you charge a little more doesnt that drive up the price?
well, yes, but more people have more money as a result as companies can spread around wealth much better.
@@ivonniebaby then who will research..
U won't get next apple, iphone, ipad
@@ramraghuwanshi2562 eh?
@@ivonniebaby for research, startup u need wealthy investors.. Who will fund loss making startups?
Remeber tesla remain loss making foorr 8 years... Same with uber etc
@@ramraghuwanshi2562 tesla made a loss and so did uber, tesla still makes a loss I believe. they get funded because of speculation. businesses (although they'll be incredibly different in a non-growth based economy) will be funded still.
This is a really intriguing way to start thinking about economic growth/degrowth
6 years ago..
Quality of life...who determines that???
Wgatcabout discussion...where's the cons..no discu
I’m ready for enviroeconomy to be honest.
You mean what china already has?
@@kage6613 you're joking
I thought this was Nathan Fielder... wait I think it is 😂
We can increase GDP by commodification of air. That's ridiculous right
OK komrade
Just became a degrowther!
What is the name of song on the background? Excellent video btw, very informative and useful)
you can see it in the credits
Excellent! Please translate into Spanish, sure there are many people interested in seeing it.
+J. Luis Perlasca Good idea! I should do that
can we do it? or only the admin can do it?
please don't these ideas are dangerous for developing countries
Okay but does anyone else think this guy is so hot lmao.
The necessary scenario that just won't happen.
goes well with a (voluntary, high) unconditional basic income
marco van heugten Check out Jaron Lanier’s two system idea. Using our data as an income source so we don’t have to work so much.
nothing voluntary about forced taxation. taxes are theft.
So if we all want to get paid to "take care our grandparents ", and if work is voluntary...then who is going to work?
When that system fails...who is going to make us work?
Of course the government will have to step in and force our unarmed society to work (under the guise of reducing theft for the common good) and "Welcome communism!"
@@complyvoluntarily I guess, but having roads and fire fighters is nice
@@seanimal7723 it's a transition, and it will become both easier and more necessary as jobs are lost to automation.
Will rapidly developing AI impact degrowth?
I'd pessimistically guess not. Whenever efficiencies are made, consumption increases as more is able to be produced.
@@aleccino truly the sad thing about it all. Without a fundamental change in how we view things as societies, aka capitalistic, technological advances will lead to even more consumption.
@@ottiliaottilia yep. We're all conditioned to care most about whether the line is going up. And it would need to be a global effort to change, because only one/a few countries pursuing degrowth will just mean the other countries will dominate the markets. I think a 4 or even 3 day work week is a step in the right direction which I believe is working swimmingly in Scandinavia but there's just so much needed to make a real change. All looking bleak basically.
Indeed :c @@aleccino
It's hard to be a capitalist alternative when you describe it in capitalist language. Even the term degrowth is just saying your anti-capitalist it's not something new.
how does this channel not have like 5M subscribers?? well, now it has one more, at least ❤️
Degrowth means that lifespans will shorten, and populations will shrink.
A) not true
B) so what if it did?
@@aleccino Shortening lifespans is not something we should promote. It will cause unbelievable levels of backlash. We need to point out that degrowth has absolutely nothing to do with how long you live.
It means quality of life and standards of living will tumble.
this is actually not true for rich countries. Take the US for example, rises in GDP have gone simultaneously with an decrease in life expectancy in recent years. Degrowth is about how can we effectively and justly improve the wellbeing of people and species whilst staying within the planetary boundaries. Degrowth does not mean we have to return to some medieval style of living when the lifespan was only 30 years. We can still use our modern healthcare and have access to lots of nutritious foods (which are the main factors that lengthened our lifespans).
@@miriamwatchingyoutube Modern healthcare needs modern technologies, which is very ungreen. Herbal hippie medicine can't kill cancer cells, but expensive medical machinery can.
Never, in over 60 years of life, have i seen anything get cheaper because of progress. The one possible exception is that life, itself, is cheaper.
If that's the case you're not paying attention. A shit ton of shit got cheaper. Stuff relating to computers got thousands of times cheaper
Nonsense. We need more growth and capitalism.
Systemic solution: Take the power to create money, out of this air, as debt, with interest, out of private hands, the banks, and hand that power back to the people, the state, which can issue debt free money, “in sums sufficient to satisfy the needs of the consumer” (President Lincoln) and in doing so, remove the need for GDP growth by removing the need to pay for the intrinsic interest, and fund a green new deal, international peace force, UBI and end gross inequality. Sovereign Money. See the Positive Money campaign.
Min 2:50 - 3:06 u sound like eminem
So beautiful and necessary, and still so unrealistic. Is there any theory how to accomplish degrwoth and keep it in a stable state? I mean, as soon as one participant starts growing again, he will soon have the majority of power, and the competition for growth is up again.
The way I understand it is that through co-ops and variety of different kinds of collectivization, any type of exploitative growth is systemically prevented; leadership roles would simply be a division of labour, rather than an unaccountable position of power. And through a cultural shift that could accompany this new economy, anyone that breaks its harmony would be ostracized, illegal, doomed to fail or all of the above.
Just speculating here though haha
It is our current unsustainable "growth" economy that is unrealistic !!! Continuous growth on our finite earth, makes us CANCER !
Beautiful! Thanks for sharing your juice!
I was already left Wing learning. After this Video I can just say PROTECT YOUR FREEDOM!
This is BS
It is literally thermodynamically impossible to continue even a 2-3% growth for the next 100 years on Earth.
That said, degrowth is a nuanced topic and must be approached carefully. The name is also quite bad optics-wise.
It really is because people don't like the idea of having less stuff
Yea i think a better name for it that alot of other people use is "regrowth" afaik it means the same thing
But the el-lites like the idea of having less people.
De-growth 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
@@simonpetrikov3992hat’s the reason a cultural shift is so necessary… but also so difficult because a lot of our physical, built environment (suburbs & McMansions) are literally made to facilitate gratuitous consumption
I want to be the one who gets paid to sit with my grandparents!
What's cartoon was in start if video?
Are the middle classes going to be made into serfs as well, or will it just be the working classes?
Exactly. They like to imagine just us plebs as the serfs and they get to be the ones living it up on a plantation. The New American Dream justifying financial tyranny: YOU TOO can become a neo-feudal rentier! Join our program and we promise we'll remember you when the roundups begin!
Everyone who isn't a self selected elite. Degrowth is just socialism rebranded to appeal to greens.
Human rights and freedoms do not involve capital, except in the US where conservatives managed to get property included in the constitution, and when the Supreme Court rules the money was speech. Conceptually, freedom does not have to be the absence of constraint, but should be seen as the capability for, which is better described as positive freedom. We can also think of a shift from quantitative growth to qualitative growth. This all shows that decarbonization is itself a deeply political agenda because it takes for granted the current economic model Since there has to date, been no reduction in the rate of emissions, or in atmospheric carbon following a failed strategy is a guarantee of failure. A decrease in production and consumption, through degrowth is the only civilized path path forward.
The founding Fathers were the one who had property added to the constitution as part of the bill of rights because in classical liberalism
There's a thing called Individual rights which includes property rights or did Karl Marx have a point in say the Liberal view of rights is bad because it was decreeing the rights of the selfish man
Note: he does actually say something like this in one of his books but to sum it up in a sentence.
"Individualism dumb because people are never monads"
USA agriculture is producing 2,5x than in 1950 but using _LESS_ land (for example). Degrowth not only leads to poverty, it's also based on assumptions that are not true. We produce more exploiting LESS thanks to innovation and technology, that's the only path.
If we embrace degrowth=less production. Less production=less wages& scarcity of goods = purchasing power of citizens falls= poverty.
Now look how much do poor countries contaminate, do you want that? I'm pretty sure you dont. With more poverty, people stop caring about environtment and start thinking more about their own future (food, shelter, clothes, a better jobs, children education, etc) and then the contamination cycle restarts. That's why it's better to just incentivize technology and innovation and renewable energy + nuclear energy: there's no other way to take more care of the planet
@@simonpetrikov3992 so you didn't understand what he said at all then. Marx never made any stupid liberal moral arguments. He was a materialist.
@@clup3136 bingo. Finally someone talking common sense instead of pushing for neo feudalism. Degrowth is genocide. The fourth Reich fully realized.
P U R E I D E O L O G Y
Not all growth is bad. What about scientific growth? That's important for treating and curing disease, allowing people to live longer and healthier.
And as nice as bottom-up grassroots initiatives are some things just can't be handled that way. You don't think a community cooperative is going to discover the cure for HIV or cancer, do you?
EDIT:
Another thing,
landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127
There is enough land for either solar or offshore wind alone to power the energy needs of the entire Earth alone. If the entire Sahara desert were solar panels it would produce 18x what is necessary.
If governments only had the political will we could do away with fossil fuels as well as dangerous nuclear fission within the next few years. If we recognized climate change as the threat that it is governments could demand the construction of enough solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal plants to meet energy needs. This would require us to tax a lot, but it would be worth it. If necessary we could limit costs by making mandatory, participation in helping to construct renewable energy plants or in helping to mine (or recycle from previous structures) or transport the materials required to build the plants. We have jury duty, why not a duty to participate in saving the planet? The government could also impose price controls for any materials bought when bought by a licensed government agent for the sole purpose of contributing to building the plants. To avoid the cost of eminent domain takings the government could just make the operation of fossil fuel or nuclear power plants illegal without buying the property. It wouldn't be illegal right away, it would only become illegal once the renewable energy plants were up and running. Before the renewable energy plants are up and running make shutting down the power plants illegal to prevent them from playing any games.
A lot of cancers would disappear if we stopped polluting our air, water, food and bodies with synthetic chemicals, electromagnetic radiation etc. Similarly HIV could be contained and eventually eradicated if more people stopped GROWING the human polution with sexual intercourse. So even these two diseases are symptoms of the growth economy. As for renewables, unfortunately alone they are not a complete solution because they're not always available. Watch this lecture: ua-cam.com/video/N-yALPEpV4w/v-deo.html
Pretty sure we dont have enough metal to power the world on wind and solar
Aside from us not having the resources and capacity to create all those solar panels or wind turbines, solar and wind power are too inconsistent to actually power a national electric grid. Without nuclear, we would need backup power sources to cover peaks in demand or dips in supply. Those backup power sources are currently some of the dirtiest energy plants in developed nations: coal, oil, natural gas.
If we wanted to avoid the need for nuclear or backup, we would need an estimated 14 days of battery reserves. Our current capacity? 47 minutes, if we pull every car battery out and hook them up to the grid.
@@meerkat1954 many evils may be symptoms of the growth economy, but unprotected sex is not one of them
If the Sahara desert were filled with solar panels, third world countries would be entirely destroyed from increased imperialist resource extraction, and then the Sahara would become a giant polluted trash heap after a decade or so. Completely fantastical, unrealistic idealism that would kill millions and only prolong our current dystopia.
😂😂😂 sure bud
Such an important, well-explained video! You earned a subscriber!
Is this just pseudo-socialism?
But the median growth has increased from roughly $13,000 to $56,000?? Can you explain your graph at 1:43
And who is paying people for growing organic if they don’t sell it?
A lot of what was claimed in this video is factually incorrect. In the United States, the rich are getting richer, but the poor are also getting richer. Also, starvation-level poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970 around the world, thanks to Capitalism. I recommend getting your economics from an actual economist. Thomas Sowell, the well known economist, has written extensively on these issues.
As for pollution, sure, we should have some regulations. But the claim that carbon dioxide is going to cause an apocalypse is not justified by the science. Many want to claim that "97%" of Climate Scientists "agree," but these studies are suspect for a number of reasons, and despite what Left-wing politicians claim, none of these studies have ever asked scientists about the severity of the problem. There is a big difference between saying that humans are causing significant warming, and saying that this warming will be dramatically harmful to the health of the planet.
The IPCC (the synthesis of the global scientific community on climate) regularly issues many hundreds of pages of reports focusing precisely on the severity of the problem... from water shortages to ocean acidification and of course species mass extinction which is now occurring. How sick does the patient have to be before you admit it might be unhealthy?
Yea great mate, just one massive problem of our ecological footprint being higher than the earth's bio capacity. Not a partisan issue or at least shouldn't be eejit
It's interesting how you say the author of the video should listen to the scientists when it comes to the economy but then turn around and question the validity of climate science. You clearly haven't spent much time studying climate science.
Try Michael Hudson. More and more of these economists agree with degrowth and magical liberal capitalist ideological thinking.
Wow. I can't believe this is a thing. No sense of economic reality what so ever.
1) global amount of people living in poverty has decreased dramatically
2) as green energy sources become cheaper, the adoption rate will increase
3) you used household income data for the U.S. Which is misleading bc as people make more money they tend to decrease the sizes of households, such as choosing to live without a roommate, which leads to shrinking household income when individual income actually rises.
There are a lot of fallacies in this video, I feel that a focus on how to reduce carbon emissions would have been a lot more relevant and beneficial.
1) How do you measure poverty? Usually "poor" families used to have everything so sustain themselves around, but once the "developed" economy comes around they of course get involved into wage labour relations, giving them more money than they had before but less thing since they used to possess them but now they have to pay for them.
2) IF more and more people will adopt more and more green energy sources, more and more raw materials will decrease possibly bringing them to a "peak oil" kid of situation. It is happening already with those precious metals that compose our PCs and smartphones for example.
3) Living without a roomate is actually less consuming that living alone. Think: 2 people living together use the same sink, which is composed by a certain amount of steel etc., 2 people living apart use double the material to make a sink, since they possess two of them, and the same amount of water if the lived together. You can apply the same logic to many other object within the household. Thus living together will indeed mean less material used.
I hope I made my point, just ask if you don't understand one of the abovementioned points.
Take care
OzurrPaluch
1) “poor families had everything around them to sustain themselves”. Sustain themselves to what age, 35?
OzurrPaluch 2) how many commodities have gone into a “peak oil” situation where we have not found an alternative? Zero
OzurrPaluch 3) his point is not that “living with a roommate is more consuming”. His point is that using household income data does not show the true improvements in wealth of the lower income portion of americans
Michael Null It sounds like you’re into keeping your mindless consumerism intact. Enjoy the emptiness.
I wonder if Sam has figured out that this is simply communism?
No, simply communism is when you work according to ability and receive according to need. In fullblown communism, money and barter can be abolished
Sounds like utopia. What happened last time we sold a utopian dream?
The last utopian dream that the world actually bought spurred massive economic growth but kept the distribution of benefits extremely unequal, all for the low cost of irreparable environmental degradation, and our souls
@Garnitos which is exactly why degrowth is the continued magical ideological thinking that justifies continued rampant finance and debt capitalism.
Great atmosphere. Super positive. What we need is this kind of narrative to take climate change from scary nightmare to bright future. Thanks! Really well done. :)
This is a really bad introductory video that seems to be targeted at people who already agree with all premises and conclusions and have already been taught a very specific perspective on economics.
I'm new to this concept but I must admit it doesn't make any sense to me. This whole theory of degrowth seems to be based on a rather one-dimensional perspective on economies and completely dismisses the complexity of local, national, and global markets as well as neglecting any and all supply and demand dynamics. For example, the simple fact that if products that have been cheap for a long time become more expensive, less people will buy them which in turn will yield less income for the company which in turn will yield less income for the workers. The utopia of paying people for care work also doesn't make sense to me since you didn't explain where that money should come from and who will pay those people. I'm gonna continue to research this topic but so far, this is already the 2nd video that didn't explain any explicit practical scenarios of how implemented degrowth could actually work over long periods of time without the need of a dictatorship.
bye-bye
Replies to this video form economists, American style libertarians, and "conservatives" include the following comments:
Damn crazy socialists! What if I can't get a brand new iPhone every six months that differs little from my current iPhone? What if I can't get an ever-larger SUV to transport the boat I don't own up them mountain where I don't live (credit: Jon Stewart)? Bah, humbug! My personal magic sky fairy of my choice made this planet just for me, so I get to use as much as I want of whatever I want. Also, what about innovation? If I don't have the opportunity to get Bezos-rich with my orange juice venture, why would I start my business? Jobs lost, commies! You're all just jealous of billionaires! Bwahhhh!!!!
Communist trojan horse
It's time to become libertarian growth communists to fight back these fascist degrowth communists.
Only a product of of lousy education system could come up with such idiocy.
Actually quite the opposite, an education that perfectly sedates and programs the middle classes into being ideologically aligned with the ruling class, filling their heads with fantasies and magical thoughts of a false utopia where we all own nothing and are happy. The only logical end of capitalism was here, neo feudal degrowth fascism.
You left out the fact that human population also increased with economic growth. That has something to do with the depressed wages of the lower class. Don't jump on the blame the rich bandwagon for depressed wages.
Human population growth is the real problem now.
Degrowth in economy requires a degrowth in population.
That's the point, who are going to be "suicided" first?
@@sincerosc That's why we're being forced to take the "jab".
@@jakkew5753 Except that the world's rich(est) consume hundreds of times as much as the poorest, per capita
@@sincerosc We are already starving the world's poor needlessly. There is food enough, but it's not "profitable enough" to feed them. In places where girls get enough schooling to have a career other than motherhood, and where contraceptives are available, families are already smaller than they used to be. Several european countries are expecting population-shrink. If you can't get a steady job that pays enough for you to afford decent housing, you probably won't choose to have a third child
Let me get this straight. According to this, it'd be better to cut every orange in half and just throw it away. That way Oj is twice the price and more people can't afford it. Why stop there? Mandate cars get no more than 10mpg. Driving is too cheap/efficient. Replace all laundry detergent with mud. So people are properly motivated to wash by hand, they'd probably just use those extra hours saved figuring out ways of making goods and services that people want to live and be happy more affordable, the bastards.
+deuteriumjones that makes absolutely no sense. I think you need to re-watch the video -.-
@@TabithaJean96 Makes perfect sense of you take the emotion out of it.
Yep. These people have no grounding in material reality. Pure idealism as they continue to frame 'consumerism' as the great evil, like the good little degrowth social fascist hyper capitalists they are.
Communal orange groves? What fantasy world are you living in?
Socialism
Is that such a bad thing? God forbid we put the population before the corporation
@@p24p14 Yes. It's a horrible thing. It NEVER ends up well.
@@marquisl2313 newsflash: we've been socialist for almost a century. All the developed world has. They're now trying to transition to fascism/"degrowth communism." It's time for the American people to learn history and that historically, pro growth communism was not a left or right wing agenda, but a new paradigm that reorganized a nation to put its working class people in power OVER the owning classes. This is what china has and why they have easily overtaken us. If we don't embrace proletarian liberty communism, we're going to be forced into neo-feudal degrowth communism which will make CIA/Nazi horror stories of Stalin look like kiddie fun land.
Interesting way to sell the idea of socialism which then leads to the commy life style.
Bruh take an economic class, that's not how that works at all
@@p24p14 Oh, the de growth nerd in the video is not basing his crap on socialism? People can take Fridays off, be paid for taking care of their ageing parents, farm co opts. Spread the wealth around a little better. Some one needs to take an econ course, bruh.
@@Joskemom So what if he is? You're the one who suggested communism, they're not the same
@@p24p14 Socialism is the stepping stone to Communism. Oh, what, you did not know that?
@@Joskemom It really isn't man, I'm not living in a communist society up here in Canada
Carbon emissions not equal to environmental damage. London much cleaner than 1800s today. Explain that
Your confusing carbon emissions with general pollution
That's like filling your house with carbon monoxide (a colourless, odourless gas) and saying there's no pollution problem just because the air inside your house looks clean and you don't smell anything strange... meanwhile everyone is lying dead in the next room.
Lol you fucking idiot