I'm thinking of one of the "yellow vests'" slogans from the 2010s: Fin du mois, fin de la planète, même combat - End of the month, end of the planet, same struggle.
of all your interviews, Jason was the most successful and inspiring a trace of hope in this doomer. right up to the point of requiring capital to suspend its hegemony on growth, intergenerational wealth, and property rights ( ... bloody hell).
Degrowth is the answer. All the green movements and activist groups we have right now are basically pieces of the degrowth picture. Permaculture, localize movement, XR, FFF, Transition Towns, circular economy, minimalist movement, zero waste movement, Deep Adaptation, Universal Basic Services, open source information sharing etc are the ways degrowth is expressed, and will hopefully coalesce into locally and global meaningful degrowth politics. I think it would be fair to people to explain what Steinberger's research means by sufficiency. We're talking 15 sqm heated space per person (plus 20sqm per unit), 1 laptop per household, maximum 15000 km travel preferably collective, 4 kg new clothing per year etc. It is early days for this specific kind of research (quantifying in such a detailed way), but it is already very helpful as a baseline understanding for us all. The background to start thinking about all of this is the understanding of limits to growth, overshoot, ecological footprint etc, your earlier interviews naturally leads to degrowth as solution.
what are these transition towns? is this where everyones genitals have been butchered up already? there is so much 'accurate understanding' of the problems the society is facing right now, its really hurting everyone. we need to enable people to solve their own problems by cancelling all mainstream 'problem solvers'/ fake people/ actors/ activists/ fame and fortune addicted parasites of every ilk and creed spewing highly braindead buzzwords and virtue signalling curses into dumbfounded population ad nauseum.
Bear in mind that all of these great scholars don't have clue one on how to implement any of these degrowth strategies except to turn all of it over to government. They in turn invariably issue prohibitions to economic behavior which bring systems crashing down and liberties go out the window. Capitalism works precisely because to the extent the fetters are removed all of us can innovate and produce. All of this is fanciful nonsense anyway. How were these limitations conceived of? I would wager they are based on nothing but guesses.
With twenty years of playing with the games people play -- whatever form of denial -- I find Jason Hickel's presentations to be highly uplifting. On the off chance we pick up on the reality he so well describes.
I think powerdown is possibly a better word then degrowth? A planet filled with a vast variety of Eco Villages provides an Image of what it could take to achieve this
Given that infinite growth is the essence of the problem It makes sense to not merely ungrowth or ingrowth... but rather to de-growth. It's a bit goofy that people attempt to post-facto change the terminology and engage in sophistry around it.
To the bit about renewables, I am a power systems engineer specializing in plant control and power systems modelling for large-scale renewables. In my opinion, renewables are a technologically superior form of power generation when compared to traditional generation, and building a 100% renewable grid is totally feasible, and with the addition of about 20% or so of the grid being a backbone of nuclear, it becomes much easier even. We need to nationalize our energy grid and plan generation resources, load centers, and transmission infrastructure on the highest level. Much of the inefficiency right now in my opinion comes from having a system of numerous private developers, owners, and utilities, all competing to maximize their individual profits and not prioritizing efficient use of resources on the level of the grid as a single system.
Thank you very much for the great interview. I'm very interested in this issue after I happened to pick it up that the book 'LESS IS MORE' translated in Japanese issued on May 2023. As you know, the original book was issued in 2020, that means almost Japanese didn't have a chance to know your opinion until 2023. In addition, I've clearly understood that the reason why almost mass medium in Japan don't take your theory. It's because they also are kept alive by capitalists and your opinion is very inconvenient for capitalists. I realized that those theories related to ecosocialism have not introduced to Japanese, and therefore unfortunately we, Japanese don't know and don't understand why a lot of people are taking extreme actions, like Greta Ernman Thunberg and her supporters and like people who blocked roads to stop cars in Germany, and so on. I worry about even if a lot of Japanese understand this theory, they might not support it as Japanese is both laborers and capitalists. That is because the reason elderly persons can get public pension is thanks to be invested funs in market. So I believe whether this theory will be supported or not in Japan depends on whether we can find and show a new and concrete image of society that we can feel peace of mind without system like that. And I think the biggest problem is that young people are falling into the 'cultural hegemony' (Mr. Hickel said in the book) by education not only school but also mass medium. Therefore, I believe our task is to find how to spread your theory and how to create mind to create details for this society which makes almost people happy. I think the strategy to put into practice it could find in any knowledge which was written by great predecessors.
Regarding the resources required for electrification, there is also the view (hopefully true) that we'll need fewer resources for "fossil fuel replacements" because electrical systems are more efficient. Discussed in "Just Have a Think" July 2, 2023 UA-cam episode entitled Have we got enough minerals? The video references Michael Barnard who wrote the article Why Aren't Energy Flows Diagrams Used More to Inform Decarbonization which suggests "The primary energy fallacy is the assumption that all of the energy in all of the oil, gas and coal we burn today must be replaced. We don’t need to replace it, we need to replace the unwasted energy services."
Won't happen. My optimistic calculations comes down to about to +40% to 45% energy production needed to replace automotive travel/transport. Heating is about a similar amount, provided we could run everything on a heatpump with CoP 3.0. We can't do that for process heat however so that probably means about 3% more per % you cannot gather with Heat pumps. 4% if it needs H2 as an intermediate energy carrier. The only way to do that is either Nuke plants for electricity and proces heat ( direct heat transfer via a heat plant ) or using Thermal energy from nuke plants to crack water. It's also the only way to power enough CO2 removal plants to make an appreciable change. Best not to bother with decarbonizing airtravel at this point, too much engineering work to bother with limited returns.
It's not really about that, it's mostly that in the US especially, SUV production and consumption is the primary form that car dependency takes. Sure, roads can be used by any type of automobile, but by far and away the most common vehicle is SUVs. So that's probably why he singles them out. Most anti-car people don't want cars to immediately go away forever instantly; instead, drastically reducing car-dependency (being the transit infrastructure and such) is the main focus. If you have less infrastructure for cars and more for walking, cycling, and rail, then less people will buy cars and fewer cars will be produced (the cars in this case being mostly SUVs). But you're not wrong to point out that car people are less likely to balk at reducing car dependency when you say "less SUVs". And for what it's worth (this is purely anecdotal) I and someone I know are both carheads and still hate car dependency and fossil fuels. Sounds contradictory and probably is to some extent, but some things can't be helped I guess haha.
When you look at how the new marxists treat people and talk about them, there is no denying that there is something seriously wrong with them. They will absolutely kill you if you get in their way because they want group rights and not individual rights....individuals make groups... They either dont get it or they do and they dont care because they will be on the controlling side. good luck.
It would be good to get Louis Arnoux to elaborate his negative view of DeGrowth In general, it would be good to actively cross -fertilize between PC guests
Great guest and interview, and I'll really glad you pushed back on the so-called "renewables" really being just "rebuildable" - if more interviewers followed your lead, we can hopefully move on from this too often repeated naive sentiment that solar panels/windmills are the key to a bright "sustainable" future.
h0pefully we can move on to slightly more sustainable nuclear powered titanium cars. with modern advanced materials there might be no need to rebuild anything for a few centuries....... imagine archeologists in the future find a skeleton of elon musk at the bottom of a dried out lake still driving around in circles while everyone else has already moved onto the most sustainable known to man leg powered cars of the flintstones variety.🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿
Yeah the amount of solar and wind we'd need is like the size of several states according to the hegemonic Princeton Net Zero America projections. That's why degrowth is so important: we can't double our energy usage like they say we will.
3:52 And just as GDP as a general measure can’t capture class disparities, it is a similar story for resource usage here. The wealthy/the elite/corporations are the ones who use the most in this country. There should be distinctions made here because it is not truly a picture of _everyone in the west is equally responsible for this._ (Edit: later on he makes this point)
In the de-growth strategy where everyone has access to "what they need" I don't hear much discussion about what the minimum energy required is for "what they need". For example, I work at a vaccine plant. There are enormous natural gas burning boilers producing high pressure steam 24/7 which is sent by pipeline around the plant. Without this steam, nothing can be sterilized. Vaccines cannot be produced. You could in theory rebuild boilers to run them on wood. It would require vast deliveries by truck of wood. What would be the fuel for those trucks? Electrically driven heavy trucks are not feasible. They need denser, liquid fuels. Where will the energy come from? The problem soon becomes far more complicated once you start examining the details of what makes up our lives.
I wish westerners would give us East Europeans to live a little before pulling us in another age of socialist poverty. :( Oh well, I guess it's not to be.
@@MalfunctioningAndroid I guess Africa just has to stay poor too. It’s a tough job deciding who gets to eat and who starves. Thank goodness we’ve got such clever people who’ll be able to work it all out.
Excellent interview. I would recommend as a follow up interview Anna Coote of the New Economics Foundation (in the UK) who has done some incredible work lately on Universal Basic Services. What you hear a lot about nowadays is Universal Basic Income, but the premise of a lot of UBI advocates is to take the capitalist market economy for granted as a kind of reasonable system for social provisioning if it were more accessible. The problem is that capitalist and elite interests are still in a position to suck that money out of peoples wallets, to say nothing of the deliberately wasteful practices that they engage in to maximize profit. UBS are not just state-run services, and include other non-commercial and community organizations that provide basic but essential goods and services regardless of ability to pay, and both empower workers with employment but directly relieve from the burden of having to spend so much time working for money to access the essential things in life.
We really don't have paradise, we HAD paradise. We've trashed the planet and we must now learn to act like adults that can control themselves and work towards a sustainable future. That may mean we need to make sacrifices, but if you're not willing to do that then you're not going to have any future, nor will your children.
"Materials required to capture and transform solar and wind power into usable energy for us...requires an extraordinary amount of material extraction. That's fine. Clearly we have to transition to renewables as quickly as possible." Wow. That's some impressive cognitive dissonance.
Nahh. Nukes. Much more power per ton of material. Also keep in mind that an ever expanding amount of turbines would need to be replaced every 20-25 years, ditto maintenance. Keep in mind projected labor availability.... Labor is a limited resource. How many engineers and maintenance guys do you want to keep busy producing a smaller amount of energy ? We cannot do anything without predictable energy inputs.
The point is that renewables are not a quick fix to the problems that the growth-based economic system has caused; it is still necessary to transition to renewables to avoid excessive climate change. In a “degrowth” economy, the material use would not be as great.
Hichel's sort of vague hope that renewable energy contraptions will, if pursued vigorously, save our collective bacon may have passed the energy smell test in back in 2017, but it seems like too many people are becoming energy aware these days for whom an interviewee's energy ignorance appears oncreasingly obsolete and burdensomely out of touch. To converse with someone who is energy ignorant about renewable energy is a bit like exchanging ideas about space travel with someone who is adamantly unfamiliar with basic physics. A response of "Acceleration of gravity? Oh, I don't know about that... Is that a thing?" would not help propel a space travel podcast and require the more informed host to perform a good deal of spade work. In the same way, if one is not familiar with the built-in fossil fuel and resource input requirements required in the construction of solar panels and wind turbines, one risks revealing oneself as ignorant of the innate downsides of what one is promoting so chirpingly. Plus the arguably current depletion of cheap (i. e. easily accessed) fossil fuels puts an indelible expiration date on the side of global industrial civilization carton, as energy is the economy. I'd like to see, or rather hear, both podcast hosts and podcast interviewees to have outgrown energy ignorance, which is becoming jarring and getting a bit sad at this late stage of our fossil fuel economy. Hickel makes up for his energy ignorance to some degree through his insight into vested interests fighting against voluntary degrowth and protecting "business as usual" until the very wheels global industrial civilization fall off. Degrowth and re-localization seems likely to fall to smaller communities to arrange, but what a shame we can't put our national governments to use for us the people rather than for the few protectors of big capital who pursue growth at any cost including the coming vast and unnecessary immiseration of most people. Perhaps on their deathbeds, national governments will break from their energy ignorance, but that's too late. Business as usual is proving to have an increasingly obvious poor outcome. We can change our fate, but we have to snap out of enchantment with digging our own grave while convinced that we are treasure hunting. Like it or not, we WILL snap out of the current spell of infinite growth on a finite planet, and the sooner we do so the more voluntary will be the degrowth process, and the less involuntary (and brutal) it will be. We must all become familiar with the depletion of fossil fuels and about the innate limits of renewable energy contraptions. Energy ignorance, or "energy blindness" as Nate Hagens calls it, is as out of fashion as elbow patches and smoking pipes among academics. Energy ignorance quickly renders one's voice irrelevant to the conversation of inevitable degrowth, so please catch up on actual energy information, perhaps starting with Energy Skeptic's website host Alice Friedemann (as brought up by this program's host), whose summaries on the resource requirements and impracticalities of renewable energy bristle with footnotes to peer reviewed papers, data and facts that cut through optimistic, unfounded energy solutions like a blow torch through butter. Facts are helpfully waking many of us up from various unattainable green future dreams, many of which don't pass the energy smell test. Rest assured, we will definitely rely on renewable energy in the future, but likely captured using old-timey technologies such as sailing ships, water wheels, mills catching wind to grind wheat, and trees that provide firewood, all likely to make comebacks in the post-carbon world. Whether we like it or not, we will be climbing Mount Degrowth, a feat that will make an Everest climb seem like a Kew Gardens stroll in comparison. Let's do so outfitted, both physically and psychologically, as robustly and aware as we can become. Let's become energy wise guys, and give the energy unaware well deserved ribbings. Let's not arrange preparations wishfully and poorly, and consequently have to leap from a rudely awakened sleep in pajamas and puppy slippers. Instead, let's get in the know about what an energy impoverished world will be like and prepare accordingly, nationally, locally and individually, because energy awareness is not curmudgeonly pessimism or misanthropy at all. It's an ethical and humane position based on the facts of our globally collective dilemma, and it anticipates and attempts to mitigate vast coming suffering, always a jolly idea. Unfounded energy opinions, such as is currently promoted in the form of renewable energy capturing contraptions that require vast amounts of energy to assemble, to maintain, to dispose of and to replace, can't fly no matter how one crunches the numbers, and such opinions are increasingly smelling of energy ignorance and are increasingly and rightfully getting the raspberry. Let's anticipate the degrowth of an energy impoverished world and prepare as best we can for its inevitable arrival by becoming unapologetic energy wise guys.
Planet: Critical seems to be going back and forth between the energy realists and the renewable dreamers and fantasizers. I wish there were more consistency.
@Marty McCorkle we already have technologies not seen in the market, not the stupidity of carbon capture or "renewables" like biomass or the overly complex solutions of nuclear, solar, tidal, etc but truely transformative energy solutions. however it's our belief in intergenerational wealth, financial prosperity, and income inequality that is hobbling our civilization as it has done 4+ millennia.
Advanced nuclear, specifically uranium-based molten salt reactor technology will give the world all the energy it needs for billions of years. With that much abundant energy, there is very little that can't be recycled. Drop that fact into your degrowth equation.
@@chapter4travels The technology is dubious and any large-scale deployment would be decades from now. In other words it’s not a solution at all. Not to mention the political/ideological drawbacks of nuclear energy in general.
46:10 The definition at this point in the video is wrong. We have central banking which creates debt that has to be paid back. If we remove central banking what is the effect on capitalism. Someone must of answered this question.
Maybe I'm getting old and crotchety but I can't stand this new trend of every speaker ending a statement with "right?" Why are you expecting me to agree with every point you make? In Hickel's case, it all sounds marvelous. The only problem is the completwly abstract nature of his proposals. Nothing about how we could actually get there, politically. As a marxist, I actually need to know thise pesky details.
I did not notice a specific mention of planned obsolescence though some statements implied it. What about Depreciation. Karl Marx used the word 'depreciation' 35 times in his major work. But consumers did not buy automobiles back then. Where is the data on the annual depreciation of all of the cars? Then our schools don't tell everyone what a bathtub curveis about.
Someone else called this one out but talking about the economy without a solid understanding of physics, and especially the physics of "renewable" energy is not much better than a pipe dream. Please bring in people that understand these concepts like Dr. Paul Cockshott or other scientists working in Econophysics which apparently is a field that exists now. Also, I am all for supporting AES countries like NK and Cuba but let's be real, Cuban people are not better off than "middle class" (for lack of a better term) Americans, Canadians, or Europeans for that matter.
after listening to a discussion on the transition from the oil economy, not the energy source but the actual impediment to any climate action the economy, we find ourselfes confronting the real challenge of Cuban extravagance. the transition off of oil had a soft landing possibility in in 1922 but in 2022 it's an economic meat grinder because we substituted finacialization for production to sustain growth. the econmy will die badly and obviously "they" have chosen to let that happen prior to any substantive change in our energy sources. understanding that all that capital growth and consumer garbage doesn't make humans satisfied, healthy, or happy "let's be real" we'll have an existential choice to make within a decade or two; extinction or learning to love the high quality of the Cuban experience. better is a relative term.
@@jthadcast It's not relative. For starters, you can eat nutritious food, including meat, anytime you want if you are not poor in North America. Likewise, access to basic utilities such as heating, cooling, and warm water is much easier than in Cuba. This is nothing against Cuba as they had to deal with severe sanctions for decades. However, if there is a model to be inspired by, I rather look up at China. Also, the energy question has a straightforward answer: nuclear.
@@A_Box if you're not poor you can eat whatever you desire in the majority of countries. China is a consumerist state that lives by the infinite growth model to stave off bankruptcy, so no inspiration there. nuclear is a fool's errand with grids, megaprojects, and the epitomy of consumer technology and waste as it can only work as a supplement to just-in-time fossil fuels and does nothing for our biggest consumption in transportation and processing.
I’m trying to learn about degrowth. But for me, as a lawyer has been really hard to understand economic concepts. Is there a podcast or a UA-cam channel that offers this kind of videos?
I recommend the channel, Gary’s Economics if you’re a beginner. Once you’re more comfortable with the basics, read Jason Hickel’s book Less is More, and when you’re ready for a challenge read David Graeber’s Debt the First 5000 Years. If that’s too dense for you, watch David’s lecture (it’s on UA-cam) titled Debt, Service and the Origins of Capitalism or read the Wikipedia synopsis on the book. If you go the Econ 101 route instead you’re likely to encounter antiquated ideas that uphold the status quo. Good luck ❤
An interesting UA-cam resource for you could maybe be the channel Simplicity Institute? Lecture series on degrowth is put out these days by Samuel Alexander.
@@bistrovogna Thank you for the heads up - I was not aware of this channel, it looks very promising, the presentation is straight forward and non-sensationalist. Looking forward to diving in to it.
I'll also add that RethinkX has freely available a "Human Action Plan" if you're looking for somewhere to start from. Lot's of good ideas (but not all of them) Worth the time cherry-picking through what would work for you.
@@PeterTodd where I'm at, we're having an influx of refugees. They want to work, and in my opinion an excellent way to utilize those that will rebuild Ukraine is to start making working teams that will post-insulate older houses. Salaried work, subsidize the investment for home owners, educate workers. Reduce the need for Europe to import Russian gas, significantly reduced energy needs. This is degrowth politics.
This guy has made a good point as to why the world will need to reduce energy use - by reducing extraction, production, transportation, distribution (through retail) etc. of stuff. But he fails to explain what the huge reduction in economic activity would do to the livelihoods of millions of people who are currently employed in these areas until 18.00. Now he says a climate job guarantee would solve the issue. Doing what? This is just a phrase. Then he says we can spread the work around. But people specialise in certain skills - they just can't do something completely different. Later he suggests people will spend their time doing different things.. Well, they might. But will this be mandated? And how will all this be introduced? By force? And who will enforce it?
Monopoly finance capital can only think of one way to solve itself: austerity and depopulation--in a word, "degrowth." In Marxist terms, this is the core of fascism over which many aesthetics and ideologies can be draped, including socialism. Ecosocialism, national socialism, same thing.
You don’t understand degrowth, it calls for neither austerity nor depopulation which is so obvious from reading anything about it that I can only assume you never have. Instead it calls on the end of capitalist production specifically because of that system’s focus on growth for growth’s sake instead of human need. I am curious what you would propose as a solution to the capitalist climate crisis. Is capitalist growth necessary for you?
@@xanderwallace4018 the only real solution to climate change is nuclear power. Nothing else can generate the energy necessary to build socialism, which is going to require an exponential consumption of energy, globally, including in the first world, which isn't industrialized enough to support socialist development, anymore. Depopulation ain't advocated for directly. But it would be the result of, for example, abandoning chemical fertilizers which made the current human population possible. Similarly, you ain't got to tell people they will be poorer to make them poorer, you just have to build them smaller apartments and not let them live in single family homes. Regardless of the reasoning for this, it's still austerity. It's still less than before. It's still austerity no matter how romantic or idyllic the imagined shorter workweek would be, where people spend less time at their job and more time doing handwork around the house to make up for the commodities they can no longer buy, even if they agree to this and like this. That's also reactionary, literally. A regression to a previous mode of production, the actual definition of reactionary. Telling people they will own less, the what they own will be more unique and meaningful, is still austerity. The irony of the modern Western left is that when degrowth style ideas first gained traction among radicals, it was within fascist movements. Communists rejected degrowth because the theory of the productive forces proves increased production (and consumption) are foundational to building socialism. Now it's the "productivist" "tankies" who are called fascists, while the middle class professionals and their wealthy patrons behind the degrowth movement, even on the left, who made up the original fascist alliances to begin with, arguing literally the same points then as y'all do now, pretend to be the inheritors of Marx. We can solve environmental issues, but the working class solution to these things won't be accepted by a "left" that follows the same class leaders and arguments that led to the rise of fascism.
@@PlanetCritical yes but nobody is doing useless jobs anymore, so there's nobody to tax except for the people doing the useful jobs. so how are you going to tax them enough to pay their wages from the taxes they're paying themselves? I assume there's some more intelligent thought involved in this than just 'the state', but it's not in this podcast.
@@robcurry445it’s not just “paying” it’s an investment. Recommend looking up “Cost of inaction climate change” the cost of not investing towards net zero is far greater than the “upfront” cost of the green transition. As for financing it there’s already plenty of examples: the IRA in the USA, China’s mass production of electric cars and renewables, Denmark and Sweden have come a long way transitioning. Governments can pay for it if they want and many are already doing a lot, plus there’s money to be made for the private sector with the right incentives.
The problem here is, how do you scale down a global economy without causing unintended consequences and create major backlashes? besides major corporations are not just going to happily give up a major source of their income without a fight.
Countries in the global north/developed world will never willingly decrease their own standards of living. Any politician running on such a platform will be commiting political seppuku. My family is from Cuba,Its not exactly a utopia, furthermore Spain is one of the countries that never truly recovered from the eurozone crisis. These are not metrics anyone are prepared to accept at present. Also,a complete global concensus is required to enforce these policies.(which are pretty much precluded for reasons of game theory).
People in general are not willing to decrease their standards of living, in favour of other people. The hippies from the sixties proved that it is not so obvious to change the human mind. So you need to workaround that aspect from the human mind. That's were big tech can help, by providing virtual alternatives for people's tendency towards decadence and other mental weaknesses. It was not just about replacing paper in the offices by virtual documents, you know? We always wanted to replace everything that can be replaced. And it's not really for the money or for an ideology. It's an obsession. It only took us few decades to make practically everybody addicted to this fine arts electronic technology, but that addiction is very mild compared to our obsession. I don't think we can be stopped anymore, soon governments will give us a carte blanche to fix all the problems, for you, the people...
As Hickel says in this interview, we can decrease overall material use and ecological degradation while maintaining or even increasing standard of living (except for the standard of living of a tiny proportion of society). This applies even to developed countries, where much of our production goes into boosting the wealth and increasing the living standards of a tiny minority. But yes, supporting these policies would likely be political suicide, but because politicians would lose out on donations from wealthy corporations and individuals, not because the general public would be opposed. That’s why this will probably have to be a bottom-up process, working from outside the political system.
It’s very fascinating to hear english speaking people fantasizing about socialism. As intelligent as this conversation sounds there is just so much wrong with it. Were there no elites in Soviet Union? 🤔 Communist utopia is cockroach infested energy deficient apartments where you can be a highly educated doctor and your next door neighbor is a counterproductive drunk because everyone is equal and public transport that also serves as a functional museum built on a 20 year old technology stolen abroad because who wants to innovate if there is no incentive. “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they’re not.”
You’re making a huge intellectual jump here. Socialism does not equal totalitarian regime. Degrowth does not mean losing democracy and free market. I come from a Soviet-block country (born and raised in the 70s and 80s), so I understand your perspective on living conditions under a communist regime. But there are multiple successful social democracies around the world (Scandinavia being one of the examples). Did you read Jason Hickel’s books? He has truly very little „English-speaking world perspective”, I find his points very well researched and his perspective very universal and truly inspiring.
Socialism is not communism ! We had a socialist government in France and the country was doing much better then, than with all the clowns that were in power since then.
yes let's distribute necessary labor more evenly! gee i wish someone had thought of that in say 1917? we need technology to flourish-capitalism funds technological growth. this central planner has probably never held a job that required manual labor, let alone been in a position to hire and manage a workforce yet he is eminently qualified to lead others into a degrowth utopia. capital infusion into the marketplace of ideas lifts us out of our problems, central planning redistributes our problems to the masses while the degrowth ecosocialists maintain their status - no thanks
just read a few of his tweets! amazing stuff: "decolonization must be about land, and economic sovereignty, or it is hardly decolonization at all." so private property and economic sovereignty for some, but not all? great!
Why do you assume fossil fuel and gdp are coupled, but neither are coupled with well being? They are all orthogonal. Corporations lied with gdp to stress out individuals, so the corporations could be more stable. It's not growth that has gotten us into this mess; it's corporate stability. Simply delicense an oil major, and they will become more responsible, all problems solved at once.
"It's not growth that has gotten us into this mess; it's corporate stability." NO, there is a clear linear relationship between the size of the global economy and the rate at which we degrade Earth's ability to support life. The whole industrialized capitalist civilization must be transformed into something that fits Earth's limits and the laws of nature. Total private sector economic activity must shrink by 50% or more, or we will still be heading for collapse.
Growth is not important for free capitalism, its only important for social state capitalism to finance gowernment spending. For true capitalism only one thing is important - freedom! And thats not what you offer here.
Growth is absolutely important for free capitalism. Investors will pull out of a corporation if that corporation does not grow, as otherwise their invested money will make them no money. Businesses need to grow in order to pay back the interest on loans they take out.
"Social control, rationing and confiscatory taxation...." Taxation is a legitimate function of government, and redistributive economic policies must be a bedrock principle of any government that doesn't want society to devolve into the plutocracy that America has become. As for rationing, either we shrink the global economy and simplify our lifestyles--including with rationing of planet-killing products--or worsening ecological and societal collapse are inevitable. Policies must be based on Earth's limits, the basic needs of livings beings, and the laws of nature, not consumerist desires.
"Universal basic services", Jason's points at 23:15 outline the area of focus that we need as a society. I've independently arrived at the same conclusion, calling it Universal Basic Needs; that we need to break down and distribute the technological means of production of our basic needs and make them available to everybody. As opposed to the capital-intensive economies of scale method of production and then global supply chains to move our essential goods around the world, we need to create tech that meets or exceeds our current convenience or value and embed them in our smallest unit of society, the home. And this all must be done sustainably and non-emitting. Housing, food, energy production, artifact production, data connectivity, blockchain node for financial independence; our first step toward a sustainable, just, future involves making these basic needs available to all humans. Then leave all that aren't basic needs up to the capitalist market. A society where all are safe and secure and have all they need for survival will bring in the next epoch of social and technological evolution. Creativity and exploration will explode and the next 1000 years would be unimaginably advanced. Houses made of green hydrogen steel reinforced hemp crete home and commercial infrastructure up to a max 4 or 5 story height, carbon negative housing Food produced in the kitchen with smart aeroponic farming appliances, that grow all a home's weekly vegetable needs according to their diet, including nutrient dense items like roots, onions, brassicas. Circumnavigation of conventional farming Energy converted from the wind and/or solar to drive electrolysis, capturing pure hydrogen outside the home and feeding it into a fuel cell serving as electricity storage Converting wave energy to compressed air/water energy storage to drive industrial electrolysis to produce green hydrogen and oxygen for the purpose of combustion in industry or vehicles, zero emission and able to retrofit all existing ICEs (there's a billion in the world...) Home manufacturing with various 3D printing technologies, material made from plants, and every printer comes with a re-extruder that can re-use any previously used material making a closed loop. Update policy all manufacturers to use plastics that can be re-used by homes, made from plants, biodegradable and without the use of fossil fuels. With the means of essential production embedded into the home, the need for a lot of infrastructure will be a lot less. Communities would be far more resilient, far more self-reliant, far less exposed to the risk and dependence of large corporations and the global supply chains, which are not anti-fragile enough to make it through climate change and geopolitical upheaval.
How does one save the climate. It’s been changing for billions of years. Seems climaphobic to say what’s normal. We need more tolerance. The climate needs to express its truth. Oil is good, prosperity is good, feeding my children meat is good. Mankind will benefit from oil for 1000’s of years. Billions of people will ensure that happens. Ask your self what are earths natural patters over thousands of years and stop denying it.
EV SUVs created by wasting enormous amounts of resources and energy to manufacture and then operate them? You don't even have to ask. There are no vehicles other than those that can be operated with human energy in the post-growth future. Think horses, bicycles and rowboats. EVs are just a cynical bright green lie, sorry to be the one to break it to you.
Horse energy is not human energy .... (just dislike how all this circles back to 'yeah, animal exploitation is ok, because WE!" it also brings back spectre of human exploitation, very physical one ... So I guess changing very base of inter-human, extra-human relations AND living within possible energy/material/labour limits should be goal ....
Just a reminder for everybody advocating for socialism, that there is no benevolent oppression. By calling for policy changes you are implicitly submitting to the current system. The government is not your friend. New forms of civilization will and are already emerging. Don't use today's politicians as scapegoats. New social structures can be created with todays technology, you just have to get to work and build them, noone is stopping you(at least in the west). Stop complaining and start innovating instead.
"Just a reminder for everybody advocating for socialism, that there is no benevolent oppression." You just confused socialism with authoritarianism: They are different things.
"This guy proves Milton Friedman’s point that it takes really smart people to convince themselves that really dumb ideas can make sense." Milton Friedman's ideas were some of the dumbest and most destructive the world has ever seen, as the accelerating unraveling of societies and ecosystems are partly due to the super-sizing of industrialized capitalism that Friedman championed. Meanwhile, given that humans are collectively overshooting Earth's sustainable carrying capacity by about 75% per year, de-growth is simply the commonsense idea that we must learn to live within our Earth budget and share resources more fairly or face a horrific collapse of ecosystems and societies.
@@karlwheatley1244Hey, rere, Paul Erlich and his overpopulation theory has been thoroughly discredited for decades now. You clearly arent even aware of modern demographics, otherwise you'd know the earths population curve is currently at its zenith.
@@ClyDIley Given that humanity is currently overshooting Earth's sustainable carrying capacity by 75% and we are heading toward catastrophic ecological and societal collapse, and given that we wouldn't be already causing the breakdown of the ecosystems that support us if our population in all countries was 20% its current size, in what way has Ehrlich been "de-bunked"? To be sure, industrialized economies and consumerist lifestyles are the biggest problems, but a growing population just supersizes those problems.
@@ClyDIley "You clearly arent even aware of modern demographics, otherwise you'd know the earths population curve is currently at its zenith." Actually, it's due to peak a little before 2040, but just the 2 billion richest people on Earth would cause worsening ecological and societal collapse if they hold onto industrialized capitalist economies and consumerist lifestyles. The point is that modern civilization itself is what's unsustainable, and a larger population of people is a threat multiplier. We should eventually get back to maybe 100 million to 500 million humans, but the transition needs to be humane and fair.
Jusr a harsh warning. This piece is bad activist journalism. Quote from the interviewer: "I didn't read your book yet"... What!? So what are we listening to then here? Seriously, this certainly is not a critical approach to Jason Hickel's rather bizarre theory, but far more a podium to give Hickel the time to spur his neomarxist propaganda. Softball questions in a conversation where the interviewer and Hickel totally agree on all topics and where degrowth is projected as the holy grail for the saviour of the planet. Does it mean destruction of society as we know it, by stagnation and poverty. Yes of course! That's the the whole purpose of this neomarxism. After the entire breakdown of the capitalist society, utopia will come as an inevitable prediction. At least that is what they are lied to, expect, and what they believe in. It is however pseudoscience propagated by false premises and exploited by people attracted by power. Questions I would ask: 1) what are the risks of imposing your degrowth model, 2) what would you do with people who dont want your system, 3) there are certain risks that the degrowth society could lead to stagnation in technology, since degrowth annuls profit based models, what is your reaction, 4) there are countries that are in desperate need of food by import, as became clearly visible by the war in Ukraine. How would you propagate degrowth to countries as Egypt, Sudan, and Somalia? 5) what if degrowth means a return to a agricultural non-technological society, would you welcome that? 6) what if large parts of the population are affected by poverty and hunger during the implication of your degrowth plan, would you return to the prior capitalist situation, 7) what if your degrowth party was in power and a majority of the people would want to return to the prior situation, would you agree on that, or oppress the uprising as a means to save the planet, and condemn the people as dumb and ignorant?
reactionaries are triggered by anything; capitalists will just say that anything for the planet is "woke indoctrination" and they will be just a triggered, all you can do is educate the ignorant and ignore the stupid while fighting the evil.
UNLESS RICH COUNTRIES ADOPT A PLANNED ECONOMY, DEGROWTH IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE PLUTOCRACY WILL NOT ALLOW A PLANNED ECONOMY THAT LIMITS GREED. PLUTOCRACY RULES, FOLKS. SO DREAM ON
Unfortunately, you might be right. However, we either find a fair way to limit growth, or nature will take care of it, and it that case it will be ugly !
Wow, there are so many assumptions made here. This is so incredibly unfeasible. This rings like throwing out a bunch of catch phrases without any substantiation, so it sounds moral but without the moral backing.
Wow that's crazy man, wanna give any particular examples so we can have a reasonable or discussion or would you prefer to keep your critique purposefully vague.
Your channel is called planet critical, yet you dont ask a single critical question or challenge any of his assumptions …no wonder the left is loosing its appeal
"Your channel is called planet critical, yet you dont ask a single critical question or challenge any of his assumptions" It's about the critical state of the web of life, but if you want critical questions, then challenge his assumptions yourself. "no wonder the left is losing its appeal" Actually, the left is being proven right over and over again, from climate to biodiversity to economics to governance.
While "degrowth" in some form seems to be a necessary part of the solution to various current environmental challenges, I keep thinking that they're full of bad ideas too. "A shorter work week" may be great for many office jobs (of which there are a lot) - but there are huge sectors of the economy where it won't, and many areas where the changing demographic situation (more retirees, fewer young workers) will mean that we are going to need LONGER working hours (healthcare and eldercare especially). "A shorter work week" also doesn't apply to business owners, nor higher level executives, who often work insanely long hours. So if you are trying to address inequality of income, you need other tools. "Ending unemployment" is also a pipe-dream, unless you treat people like commodities who can be moved to live in hostel housing wherever they are needed as workers. The reality is that half the population has (by definition) an IQ below 100, and is not suitable for working in fast-changing jobs with a high educational requirement; there are a LOT of people with IQs below 85 who have difficulty with ANY jobs in the modern economy, never mind those who are disabled, elderly, or otherwise incapable. Likewise, the idea that we can collectively reach consensus on anything is simply at odds with reality. So, making a joint decision on what types of goods and products etc. are bad for society is NOT going to be possible unless the decision is simply imposed by a ruling elite of "the chosen", ie. a tyranny. Trying to regulate what kinds of products can and should be banned (because they are unsustainable) also implies a degree of bureaucratic control that would simply kill innovation, at a time when we need it more than ever - and the economy as well of course. As much as capitalism has been an engine driving inequality and wasteful use of resources, it is also a system that promises that we can all grow rich, or at least much better off than we used to be (while the fossil fuels last, that is). Aiming for equality of wealth instead is achievable, but all previous (mostly communist) experiments have shown that the greater the equality, the more EVERYONE is poorer and worse off - in access to food, material products, and even liberty. The Capitalism train is running out of track (i.e. limited metal and fuel resources, too much pollution etc.), so we desperately need viable alternatives... but we're going to have to evolve our society and economies (of different countries and regions) through trial and error, as we always do. We're probably going to need a lot of different small-scale "pilot projects" in different countries to see what works and what doesn't, to share lessons learned. Unfortunately, some of these may succeed in their environmental goals (reduced use of resources), but fail for other reasons (e.g. new problems, or failing to cope with political problems etc.) - the successful experiments will be those that survive, not those who go in with a fixed idea of what SHOULD work. I still keep thinking that a much simpler approach could be used to drive the same kinds of results. For example, a high enough universal carbon tax (redistributed in equal amounts to all individuals, or with a corresponding carbon budget allocation per person as per Steve Keen). Since resource production requires energy, this kind of market incentive should (theoretically) drive economies towards using less resources, and value people skills and labor more. (Pollution remains a problem, unfortunately, unless sufficiently regulated.) Interestingly, the Ukraine war price spike in fossil fuels has been described as being effectively the first universal carbon tax. It will be interesting to see if that actually drives any climate-friendly changes in the economy.
Degrowth is only possible in capitalism is with a reduction in population. Otherwise degrowth is only possible if the government owns the means of production which is a crock
It's not just that "renewables" require more energy on a continuing basis because of resource extraction to make them, but this grid of transmission lines required for larger solar and wind farms does not yet exist. And THAT system is a major energy and resources drain as well. And there has been discussions about expanding this grid WORLDWIDE. So "renewables" owned by major corporations is only a pretext for ever more consumption and not about reducing energy consumption in ANY way.
What you guys are asking for is EcoStalinism. The word "necessary" does a lot of heavy lifting in this conversation. What is "unnecessary" production? Most of our hobbies and interests are unnecessary so who determines what is produced and what isn't? The economy is so vast and caters to so many different interests; the idea that a benevolent state will sit there and micromanage it all is laughable. The best example you have of this is the Soviet Union and I think we all know how great that worked out. I'm sure these people are well meaning but we'd all effectively be prisoners in the state of Kim-Jong Hickel.
It is the west which has been 'organising' production these last decades. And it is getting worse. Stalin should never be compared to any sort of socialism. He was never a socialist with his state growth and his socialism in one country: National Socialist: Nazi. !!
You’re fighting the wrong enemy, Brett. I don’t blame you, there’s a lot of red-scare propaganda out there, specifically designed to make you afraid of alternatives to capitalism. The worlds elites want you and I to fight each other so we do not unite against our common enemy: the ruling class. Keep an open heart and stay curious, the truth is buried but it’s out there.
The point is that currently the majority of people have no control over what is produced. Rather, those with accumulated wealth (capital) have the power to decide how we allocate resources. If we have a more democratic economy, then people have more of a say in what is ‘necessary’.
I'm thinking of one of the "yellow vests'" slogans from the 2010s: Fin du mois, fin de la planète, même combat - End of the month, end of the planet, same struggle.
of all your interviews, Jason was the most successful and inspiring a trace of hope in this doomer. right up to the point of requiring capital to suspend its hegemony on growth, intergenerational wealth, and property rights ( ... bloody hell).
@@jthadcast What’s the difference between this and communism?
Degrowth is the answer. All the green movements and activist groups we have right now are basically pieces of the degrowth picture. Permaculture, localize movement, XR, FFF, Transition Towns, circular economy, minimalist movement, zero waste movement, Deep Adaptation, Universal Basic Services, open source information sharing etc are the ways degrowth is expressed, and will hopefully coalesce into locally and global meaningful degrowth politics.
I think it would be fair to people to explain what Steinberger's research means by sufficiency. We're talking 15 sqm heated space per person (plus 20sqm per unit), 1 laptop per household, maximum 15000 km travel preferably collective, 4 kg new clothing per year etc. It is early days for this specific kind of research (quantifying in such a detailed way), but it is already very helpful as a baseline understanding for us all.
The background to start thinking about all of this is the understanding of limits to growth, overshoot, ecological footprint etc, your earlier interviews naturally leads to degrowth as solution.
no
why not
what are these transition towns? is this where everyones genitals have been butchered up already?
there is so much 'accurate understanding' of the problems the society is facing right now, its really hurting everyone.
we need to enable people to solve their own problems by cancelling all mainstream 'problem solvers'/ fake people/ actors/ activists/ fame and fortune addicted parasites of every ilk and creed spewing highly braindead buzzwords and virtue signalling curses into dumbfounded population ad nauseum.
Bear in mind that all of these great scholars don't have clue one on how to implement any of these degrowth strategies except to turn all of it over to government. They in turn invariably issue prohibitions to economic behavior which bring systems crashing down and liberties go out the window.
Capitalism works precisely because to the extent the fetters are removed all of us can innovate and produce.
All of this is fanciful nonsense anyway. How were these limitations conceived of? I would wager they are based on nothing but guesses.
With twenty years of playing with the games people play -- whatever form of denial -- I find Jason Hickel's presentations to be highly uplifting. On the off chance we pick up on the reality he so well describes.
I think powerdown is possibly a better word then degrowth? A planet filled with a vast variety of Eco Villages provides an Image of what it could take to achieve this
More peasants, good idea.
That fits nicely with how some groups think of the average person.
@@dwwolf4636 Haha 😆 Ecovillages do not mean Peasants. Communities which apply Ecological Principles or more specifically Permacultural principles
"I think powerdown is possibly a better word then degrowth?" How about "right-sizing the economy"?
@@karlwheatley1244 I like that term. It would just be who decides what "right" is
Given that infinite growth is the essence of the problem
It makes sense to not merely ungrowth or ingrowth...
but rather to de-growth.
It's a bit goofy that people attempt to post-facto change the terminology and engage in sophistry around it.
its not just rich countries, its the rich in the rich countries.
To the bit about renewables, I am a power systems engineer specializing in plant control and power systems modelling for large-scale renewables.
In my opinion, renewables are a technologically superior form of power generation when compared to traditional generation, and building a 100% renewable grid is totally feasible, and with the addition of about 20% or so of the grid being a backbone of nuclear, it becomes much easier even.
We need to nationalize our energy grid and plan generation resources, load centers, and transmission infrastructure on the highest level. Much of the inefficiency right now in my opinion comes from having a system of numerous private developers, owners, and utilities, all competing to maximize their individual profits and not prioritizing efficient use of resources on the level of the grid as a single system.
Great book end to recent New Discourses video on degrowth.
Nice! keep reading and growing...gotta stay frosty during this latest cultural revolution
I came here from there. :)
Me too. This video outdid my expectation of the delusional mindset of these people
@@chaimnisan2841 "This video outdid my expectation of the delusional mindset of these people" What's delusional about it?
Oh this is such a great interview. Thank you.
Thank you for listening!
How will we decide what parts of the economy are not necessary for human flourishing?
I'm not a degrowther but democratically
@@ChiefRepublic ha, good luck with that!
Yes, that's the scariest thing about this - the level of power involved in that and how this would change power in society overall.
The same way Stalin did.
Thank you very much for the great interview.
I'm very interested in this issue after I happened to pick it up that the book 'LESS IS MORE' translated in Japanese issued on May 2023.
As you know, the original book was issued in 2020, that means almost Japanese didn't have a chance to know your opinion until 2023.
In addition, I've clearly understood that the reason why almost mass medium in Japan don't take your theory. It's because they also are kept alive by capitalists and your opinion is very inconvenient for capitalists.
I realized that those theories related to ecosocialism have not introduced to Japanese, and therefore unfortunately we, Japanese don't know and don't understand why a lot of people are taking extreme actions, like Greta Ernman Thunberg and her supporters and like people who blocked roads to stop cars in Germany, and so on.
I worry about even if a lot of Japanese understand this theory, they might not support it as Japanese is both laborers and capitalists. That is because the reason elderly persons can get public pension is thanks to be invested funs in market.
So I believe whether this theory will be supported or not in Japan depends on whether we can find and show a new and concrete image of society that we can feel peace of mind without system like that.
And I think the biggest problem is that young people are falling into the 'cultural hegemony' (Mr. Hickel said in the book) by education not only school but also mass medium.
Therefore, I believe our task is to find how to spread your theory and how to create mind to create details for this society which makes almost people happy.
I think the strategy to put into practice it could find in any knowledge which was written by great predecessors.
Marvelous👌🏽
Regarding the resources required for electrification, there is also the view (hopefully true) that we'll need fewer resources for "fossil fuel replacements" because electrical systems are more efficient.
Discussed in "Just Have a Think" July 2, 2023 UA-cam episode entitled Have we got enough minerals? The video references Michael Barnard who wrote the article Why Aren't Energy Flows Diagrams Used More to Inform Decarbonization which suggests "The primary energy fallacy is the assumption that all of the energy in all of the oil, gas and coal we burn today must be replaced. We don’t need to replace it, we need to replace the unwasted energy services."
Won't happen.
My optimistic calculations comes down to about to +40% to 45% energy production needed to replace automotive travel/transport.
Heating is about a similar amount, provided we could run everything on a heatpump with CoP 3.0.
We can't do that for process heat however so that probably means about 3% more per % you cannot gather with Heat pumps. 4% if it needs H2 as an intermediate energy carrier.
The only way to do that is either Nuke plants for electricity and proces heat ( direct heat transfer via a heat plant ) or using Thermal energy from nuke plants to crack water.
It's also the only way to power enough CO2 removal plants to make an appreciable change.
Best not to bother with decarbonizing airtravel at this point, too much engineering work to bother with limited returns.
I like how he says suv instead of cars just so that carbrains are not offended.
It's not really about that, it's mostly that in the US especially, SUV production and consumption is the primary form that car dependency takes. Sure, roads can be used by any type of automobile, but by far and away the most common vehicle is SUVs. So that's probably why he singles them out. Most anti-car people don't want cars to immediately go away forever instantly; instead, drastically reducing car-dependency (being the transit infrastructure and such) is the main focus. If you have less infrastructure for cars and more for walking, cycling, and rail, then less people will buy cars and fewer cars will be produced (the cars in this case being mostly SUVs). But you're not wrong to point out that car people are less likely to balk at reducing car dependency when you say "less SUVs". And for what it's worth (this is purely anecdotal) I and someone I know are both carheads and still hate car dependency and fossil fuels. Sounds contradictory and probably is to some extent, but some things can't be helped I guess haha.
This is so anti-human. How can you show your human face to other humans knowing what you want to do to them?
He's one of the sodomites.
When you look at how the new marxists treat people and talk about them, there is no denying that there is something seriously wrong with them.
They will absolutely kill you if you get in their way because they want group rights and not individual rights....individuals make groups... They either dont get it or they do and they dont care because they will be on the controlling side.
good luck.
???
@@xanderwallace4018?!?
@@TreeLuvBurdpu Totally agree. He thinks it’s for the good of humanity. It’s always been the tyrant’s excuse.
It would be good to get Louis Arnoux to elaborate his negative view of DeGrowth
In general, it would be good to actively cross -fertilize between PC guests
Best I've heard
Homie spitting hard rn im turnt
Great guest and interview, and I'll really glad you pushed back on the so-called "renewables" really being just "rebuildable" - if more interviewers followed your lead, we can hopefully move on from this too often repeated naive sentiment that solar panels/windmills are the key to a bright "sustainable" future.
Thank you Jeremy!
I enjoyed this as well!
h0pefully we can move on to slightly more sustainable nuclear powered titanium cars. with modern advanced materials there might be no need to rebuild anything for a few centuries.......
imagine archeologists in the future find a skeleton of elon musk at the bottom of a dried out lake still driving around in circles while everyone else has already moved onto the most sustainable known to man leg powered cars of the flintstones variety.🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿
Yeah the amount of solar and wind we'd need is like the size of several states according to the hegemonic Princeton Net Zero America projections. That's why degrowth is so important: we can't double our energy usage like they say we will.
3:52 And just as GDP as a general measure can’t capture class disparities, it is a similar story for resource usage here. The wealthy/the elite/corporations are the ones who use the most in this country. There should be distinctions made here because it is not truly a picture of _everyone in the west is equally responsible for this._
(Edit: later on he makes this point)
In the de-growth strategy where everyone has access to "what they need" I don't hear much discussion about what the minimum energy required is for "what they need".
For example, I work at a vaccine plant. There are enormous natural gas burning boilers producing high pressure steam 24/7 which is sent by pipeline around the plant. Without this steam, nothing can be sterilized. Vaccines cannot be produced. You could in theory rebuild boilers to run them on wood. It would require vast deliveries by truck of wood. What would be the fuel for those trucks? Electrically driven heavy trucks are not feasible. They need denser, liquid fuels. Where will the energy come from?
The problem soon becomes far more complicated once you start examining the details of what makes up our lives.
I wish westerners would give us East Europeans to live a little before pulling us in another age of socialist poverty. :( Oh well, I guess it's not to be.
@@MalfunctioningAndroid I guess Africa just has to stay poor too. It’s a tough job deciding who gets to eat and who starves. Thank goodness we’ve got such clever people who’ll be able to work it all out.
Excellent interview. I would recommend as a follow up interview Anna Coote of the New Economics Foundation (in the UK) who has done some incredible work lately on Universal Basic Services. What you hear a lot about nowadays is Universal Basic Income, but the premise of a lot of UBI advocates is to take the capitalist market economy for granted as a kind of reasonable system for social provisioning if it were more accessible. The problem is that capitalist and elite interests are still in a position to suck that money out of peoples wallets, to say nothing of the deliberately wasteful practices that they engage in to maximize profit. UBS are not just state-run services, and include other non-commercial and community organizations that provide basic but essential goods and services regardless of ability to pay, and both empower workers with employment but directly relieve from the burden of having to spend so much time working for money to access the essential things in life.
Who determines what other humans desire to lead fulfilling lives? We have paradise but when humans think they can manage paradise we make hell
We really don't have paradise, we HAD paradise. We've trashed the planet and we must now learn to act like adults that can control themselves and work towards a sustainable future. That may mean we need to make sacrifices, but if you're not willing to do that then you're not going to have any future, nor will your children.
@@AndrewChapman007 sounds like a threat from a megalomaniac over the internet
@@ConsistentCedsounds like you don’t understand what’s just over the horizon.
@@NurturePalettePlayASMR plz enlighten me
@@AndrewChapman007the planet is fine. It’s poorly run cities that have been trashed. Who’s running most major cities?
I just wish guys like Jason Hickel has as much of a voice as naive optimists like Steven Pinker.
Renewables are really rebuildables.
"Materials required to capture and transform solar and wind power into usable energy for us...requires an extraordinary amount of material extraction. That's fine. Clearly we have to transition to renewables as quickly as possible."
Wow. That's some impressive cognitive dissonance.
Nahh.
Nukes.
Much more power per ton of material.
Also keep in mind that an ever expanding amount of turbines would need to be replaced every 20-25 years, ditto maintenance.
Keep in mind projected labor availability....
Labor is a limited resource. How many engineers and maintenance guys do you want to keep busy producing a smaller amount of energy ?
We cannot do anything without predictable energy inputs.
The point is that renewables are not a quick fix to the problems that the growth-based economic system has caused; it is still necessary to transition to renewables to avoid excessive climate change.
In a “degrowth” economy, the material use would not be as great.
Hichel's sort of vague hope that renewable energy contraptions will, if pursued vigorously, save our collective bacon may have passed the energy smell test in back in 2017, but it seems like too many people are becoming energy aware these days for whom an interviewee's energy ignorance appears oncreasingly obsolete and burdensomely out of touch. To converse with someone who is energy ignorant about renewable energy is a bit like exchanging ideas about space travel with someone who is adamantly unfamiliar with basic physics. A response of "Acceleration of gravity? Oh, I don't know about that... Is that a thing?" would not help propel a space travel podcast and require the more informed host to perform a good deal of spade work. In the same way, if one is not familiar with the built-in fossil fuel and resource input requirements required in the construction of solar panels and wind turbines, one risks revealing oneself as ignorant of the innate downsides of what one is promoting so chirpingly. Plus the arguably current depletion of cheap (i. e. easily accessed) fossil fuels puts an indelible expiration date on the side of global industrial civilization carton, as energy is the economy. I'd like to see, or rather hear, both podcast hosts and podcast interviewees to have outgrown energy ignorance, which is becoming jarring and getting a bit sad at this late stage of our fossil fuel economy.
Hickel makes up for his energy ignorance to some degree through his insight into vested interests fighting against voluntary degrowth and protecting "business as usual" until the very wheels global industrial civilization fall off. Degrowth and re-localization seems likely to fall to smaller communities to arrange, but what a shame we can't put our national governments to use for us the people rather than for the few protectors of big capital who pursue growth at any cost including the coming vast and unnecessary immiseration of most people. Perhaps on their deathbeds, national governments will break from their energy ignorance, but that's too late. Business as usual is proving to have an increasingly obvious poor outcome. We can change our fate, but we have to snap out of enchantment with digging our own grave while convinced that we are treasure hunting. Like it or not, we WILL snap out of the current spell of infinite growth on a finite planet, and the sooner we do so the more voluntary will be the degrowth process, and the less involuntary (and brutal) it will be.
We must all become familiar with the depletion of fossil fuels and about the innate limits of renewable energy contraptions. Energy ignorance, or "energy blindness" as Nate Hagens calls it, is as out of fashion as elbow patches and smoking pipes among academics. Energy ignorance quickly renders one's voice irrelevant to the conversation of inevitable degrowth, so please catch up on actual energy information, perhaps starting with Energy Skeptic's website host Alice Friedemann (as brought up by this program's host), whose summaries on the resource requirements and impracticalities of renewable energy bristle with footnotes to peer reviewed papers, data and facts that cut through optimistic, unfounded energy solutions like a blow torch through butter. Facts are helpfully waking many of us up from various unattainable green future dreams, many of which don't pass the energy smell test. Rest assured, we will definitely rely on renewable energy in the future, but likely captured using old-timey technologies such as sailing ships, water wheels, mills catching wind to grind wheat, and trees that provide firewood, all likely to make comebacks in the post-carbon world.
Whether we like it or not, we will be climbing Mount Degrowth, a feat that will make an Everest climb seem like a Kew Gardens stroll in comparison. Let's do so outfitted, both physically and psychologically, as robustly and aware as we can become. Let's become energy wise guys, and give the energy unaware well deserved ribbings. Let's not arrange preparations wishfully and poorly, and consequently have to leap from a rudely awakened sleep in pajamas and puppy slippers. Instead, let's get in the know about what an energy impoverished world will be like and prepare accordingly, nationally, locally and individually, because energy awareness is not curmudgeonly pessimism or misanthropy at all. It's an ethical and humane position based on the facts of our globally collective dilemma, and it anticipates and attempts to mitigate vast coming suffering, always a jolly idea. Unfounded energy opinions, such as is currently promoted in the form of renewable energy capturing contraptions that require vast amounts of energy to assemble, to maintain, to dispose of and to replace, can't fly no matter how one crunches the numbers, and such opinions are increasingly smelling of energy ignorance and are increasingly and rightfully getting the raspberry. Let's anticipate the degrowth of an energy impoverished world and prepare as best we can for its inevitable arrival by becoming unapologetic energy wise guys.
Planet: Critical seems to be going back and forth between the energy realists and the renewable dreamers and fantasizers. I wish there were more consistency.
@@johnbanach3875 ... in humans, full stop.
@Marty McCorkle we already have technologies not seen in the market, not the stupidity of carbon capture or "renewables" like biomass or the overly complex solutions of nuclear, solar, tidal, etc but truely transformative energy solutions. however it's our belief in intergenerational wealth, financial prosperity, and income inequality that is hobbling our civilization as it has done 4+ millennia.
Advanced nuclear, specifically uranium-based molten salt reactor technology will give the world all the energy it needs for billions of years. With that much abundant energy, there is very little that can't be recycled. Drop that fact into your degrowth equation.
@@chapter4travels The technology is dubious and any large-scale deployment would be decades from now. In other words it’s not a solution at all.
Not to mention the political/ideological drawbacks of nuclear energy in general.
thermal is the key
46:10 The definition at this point in the video is wrong. We have central banking which creates debt that has to be paid back. If we remove central banking what is the effect on capitalism. Someone must of answered this question.
Maybe I'm getting old and crotchety but I can't stand this new trend of every speaker ending a statement with "right?" Why are you expecting me to agree with every point you make? In Hickel's case, it all sounds marvelous. The only problem is the completwly abstract nature of his proposals. Nothing about how we could actually get there, politically. As a marxist, I actually need to know thise pesky details.
We are toast, please pass the organic marmalade and vegan butter.
I did not notice a specific mention of planned obsolescence though some statements implied it. What about Depreciation. Karl Marx used the word 'depreciation' 35 times in his major work. But consumers did not buy automobiles back then. Where is the data on the annual depreciation of all of the cars? Then our schools don't tell everyone what a bathtub curveis about.
Someone else called this one out but talking about the economy without a solid understanding of physics, and especially the physics of "renewable" energy is not much better than a pipe dream. Please bring in people that understand these concepts like Dr. Paul Cockshott or other scientists working in Econophysics which apparently is a field that exists now.
Also, I am all for supporting AES countries like NK and Cuba but let's be real, Cuban people are not better off than "middle class" (for lack of a better term) Americans, Canadians, or Europeans for that matter.
after listening to a discussion on the transition from the oil economy, not the energy source but the actual impediment to any climate action the economy, we find ourselfes confronting the real challenge of Cuban extravagance. the transition off of oil had a soft landing possibility in in 1922 but in 2022 it's an economic meat grinder because we substituted finacialization for production to sustain growth. the econmy will die badly and obviously "they" have chosen to let that happen prior to any substantive change in our energy sources.
understanding that all that capital growth and consumer garbage doesn't make humans satisfied, healthy, or happy "let's be real" we'll have an existential choice to make within a decade or two; extinction or learning to love the high quality of the Cuban experience. better is a relative term.
@@jthadcast It's not relative. For starters, you can eat nutritious food, including meat, anytime you want if you are not poor in North America. Likewise, access to basic utilities such as heating, cooling, and warm water is much easier than in Cuba. This is nothing against Cuba as they had to deal with severe sanctions for decades. However, if there is a model to be inspired by, I rather look up at China.
Also, the energy question has a straightforward answer: nuclear.
@@A_Box if you're not poor you can eat whatever you desire in the majority of countries. China is a consumerist state that lives by the infinite growth model to stave off bankruptcy, so no inspiration there. nuclear is a fool's errand with grids, megaprojects, and the epitomy of consumer technology and waste as it can only work as a supplement to just-in-time fossil fuels and does nothing for our biggest consumption in transportation and processing.
Thanks for the tip about econophysics!
@@A_Box The poor has good lives in the US if they choose to.
I’m trying to learn about degrowth. But for me, as a lawyer has been really hard to understand economic concepts. Is there a podcast or a UA-cam channel that offers this kind of videos?
I found Jason Hickel's book "Less is More" to be just that. It's so beautifully explained
Look for a channel called "unlearning economics".
Just read Marx! Lol, this is Marxism for a modern world. It's not even veiled. Red planet is the logo.
As with sustainability, degrowth is a contrived theory used to radicalise and inspire human sacrifice.
I recommend the channel, Gary’s Economics if you’re a beginner. Once you’re more comfortable with the basics, read Jason Hickel’s book Less is More, and when you’re ready for a challenge read David Graeber’s Debt the First 5000 Years. If that’s too dense for you, watch David’s lecture (it’s on UA-cam) titled Debt, Service and the Origins of Capitalism or read the Wikipedia synopsis on the book. If you go the Econ 101 route instead you’re likely to encounter antiquated ideas that uphold the status quo. Good luck ❤
Ah such a Utopia, Now how do we fast transition? Wonderful interview
An interesting UA-cam resource for you could maybe be the channel Simplicity Institute? Lecture series on degrowth is put out these days by Samuel Alexander.
@@bistrovogna Thank you for the heads up - I was not aware of this channel, it looks very promising, the presentation is straight forward and non-sensationalist. Looking forward to diving in to it.
I'll also add that RethinkX has freely available a "Human Action Plan" if you're looking for somewhere to start from. Lot's of good ideas (but not all of them)
Worth the time cherry-picking through what would work for you.
@@PeterTodd where I'm at, we're having an influx of refugees. They want to work, and in my opinion an excellent way to utilize those that will rebuild Ukraine is to start making working teams that will post-insulate older houses. Salaried work, subsidize the investment for home owners, educate workers. Reduce the need for Europe to import Russian gas, significantly reduced energy needs. This is degrowth politics.
there's only one transition that truely matters, as for all the rest humans are supreme at adaptation ... smash the market, smash the market place.
This guy has made a good point as to why the world will need to reduce energy use - by reducing extraction, production, transportation, distribution (through retail) etc. of stuff. But he fails to explain what the huge reduction in economic activity would do to the livelihoods of millions of people who are currently employed in these areas until 18.00. Now he says a climate job guarantee would solve the issue. Doing what? This is just a phrase. Then he says we can spread the work around. But people specialise in certain skills - they just can't do something completely different. Later he suggests people will spend their time doing different things.. Well, they might. But will this be mandated? And how will all this be introduced? By force? And who will enforce it?
Sharing, Justice, and Peace for All will Save Our Planet.
Monopoly finance capital can only think of one way to solve itself: austerity and depopulation--in a word, "degrowth." In Marxist terms, this is the core of fascism over which many aesthetics and ideologies can be draped, including socialism. Ecosocialism, national socialism, same thing.
You don’t understand degrowth, it calls for neither austerity nor depopulation which is so obvious from reading anything about it that I can only assume you never have. Instead it calls on the end of capitalist production specifically because of that system’s focus on growth for growth’s sake instead of human need.
I am curious what you would propose as a solution to the capitalist climate crisis. Is capitalist growth necessary for you?
@@xanderwallace4018 the only real solution to climate change is nuclear power. Nothing else can generate the energy necessary to build socialism, which is going to require an exponential consumption of energy, globally, including in the first world, which isn't industrialized enough to support socialist development, anymore.
Depopulation ain't advocated for directly. But it would be the result of, for example, abandoning chemical fertilizers which made the current human population possible.
Similarly, you ain't got to tell people they will be poorer to make them poorer, you just have to build them smaller apartments and not let them live in single family homes. Regardless of the reasoning for this, it's still austerity. It's still less than before.
It's still austerity no matter how romantic or idyllic the imagined shorter workweek would be, where people spend less time at their job and more time doing handwork around the house to make up for the commodities they can no longer buy, even if they agree to this and like this. That's also reactionary, literally. A regression to a previous mode of production, the actual definition of reactionary.
Telling people they will own less, the what they own will be more unique and meaningful, is still austerity.
The irony of the modern Western left is that when degrowth style ideas first gained traction among radicals, it was within fascist movements. Communists rejected degrowth because the theory of the productive forces proves increased production (and consumption) are foundational to building socialism.
Now it's the "productivist" "tankies" who are called fascists, while the middle class professionals and their wealthy patrons behind the degrowth movement, even on the left, who made up the original fascist alliances to begin with, arguing literally the same points then as y'all do now, pretend to be the inheritors of Marx.
We can solve environmental issues, but the working class solution to these things won't be accepted by a "left" that follows the same class leaders and arguments that led to the rise of fascism.
Genuine question. If you decommodify healthcare, education, transport etc etc etc along the lines you outline, who pays for it?
The state, with taxes
@@PlanetCritical yes but nobody is doing useless jobs anymore, so there's nobody to tax except for the people doing the useful jobs. so how are you going to tax them enough to pay their wages from the taxes they're paying themselves? I assume there's some more intelligent thought involved in this than just 'the state', but it's not in this podcast.
@@robcurry445it’s not just “paying” it’s an investment. Recommend looking up “Cost of inaction climate change” the cost of not investing towards net zero is far greater than the “upfront” cost of the green transition. As for financing it there’s already plenty of examples: the IRA in the USA, China’s mass production of electric cars and renewables, Denmark and Sweden have come a long way transitioning. Governments can pay for it if they want and many are already doing a lot, plus there’s money to be made for the private sector with the right incentives.
You are the carbon they want to reduce.
The problem here is, how do you scale down a global economy without causing unintended consequences and create major backlashes? besides major corporations are not just going to happily give up a major source of their income without a fight.
That’s where ESG-environmental social governance ..comes in! Strong arming companies to go green by threatening their supply chain!
Supply chains aren't just for corporations to have fun with, you and me need supply chains too, for our survival.@@Jms78able
Love the video but if you want more people to watch, why not film it and cut the intro much shorter
Red planet, seems appropriate.
That's what color the oceans will be after these anti-humans implement their ideology
Countries in the global north/developed world will never willingly decrease their own standards of living.
Any politician running on such a platform will be commiting political seppuku.
My family is from Cuba,Its not exactly a utopia, furthermore Spain is one of the countries that never truly recovered from the eurozone crisis.
These are not metrics anyone are prepared to accept at present.
Also,a complete global concensus is required to enforce these policies.(which are pretty much precluded for reasons of game theory).
People in general are not willing to decrease their standards of living, in favour of other people. The hippies from the sixties proved that it is not so obvious to change the human mind. So you need to workaround that aspect from the human mind. That's were big tech can help, by providing virtual alternatives for people's tendency towards decadence and other mental weaknesses. It was not just about replacing paper in the offices by virtual documents, you know? We always wanted to replace everything that can be replaced. And it's not really for the money or for an ideology. It's an obsession. It only took us few decades to make practically everybody addicted to this fine arts electronic technology, but that addiction is very mild compared to our obsession. I don't think we can be stopped anymore, soon governments will give us a carte blanche to fix all the problems, for you, the people...
As Hickel says in this interview, we can decrease overall material use and ecological degradation while maintaining or even increasing standard of living (except for the standard of living of a tiny proportion of society). This applies even to developed countries, where much of our production goes into boosting the wealth and increasing the living standards of a tiny minority.
But yes, supporting these policies would likely be political suicide, but because politicians would lose out on donations from wealthy corporations and individuals, not because the general public would be opposed.
That’s why this will probably have to be a bottom-up process, working from outside the political system.
What's the surname (first name Max) of the anti imperialist degrowth thinker mentioned at the end?
That would be Max Ajl.
@@PeterTodd thanks, I tried a bunch of permutations of what I thought I heard and no joy. Nice one!
It’s very fascinating to hear english speaking people fantasizing about socialism. As intelligent as this conversation sounds there is just so much wrong with it. Were there no elites in Soviet Union? 🤔 Communist utopia is cockroach infested energy deficient apartments where you can be a highly educated doctor and your next door neighbor is a counterproductive drunk because everyone is equal and public transport that also serves as a functional museum built on a 20 year old technology stolen abroad because who wants to innovate if there is no incentive. “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they’re not.”
Awesome!
Spot On!
You’re making a huge intellectual jump here. Socialism does not equal totalitarian regime. Degrowth does not mean losing democracy and free market. I come from a Soviet-block country (born and raised in the 70s and 80s), so I understand your perspective on living conditions under a communist regime. But there are multiple successful social democracies around the world (Scandinavia being one of the examples). Did you read Jason Hickel’s books? He has truly very little „English-speaking world perspective”, I find his points very well researched and his perspective very universal and truly inspiring.
Socialism is not communism ! We had a socialist government in France and the country was doing much better then, than with all the clowns that were in power since then.
yes let's distribute necessary labor more evenly! gee i wish someone had thought of that in say 1917?
we need technology to flourish-capitalism funds technological growth. this central planner has probably never held a job that required manual labor, let alone been in a position to hire and manage a workforce yet he is eminently qualified to lead others into a degrowth utopia. capital infusion into the marketplace of ideas lifts us out of our problems, central planning redistributes our problems to the masses while the degrowth ecosocialists maintain their status - no thanks
just read a few of his tweets!
amazing stuff: "decolonization must be about land, and economic sovereignty, or it is hardly decolonization at all." so private property and economic sovereignty for some, but not all? great!
Why do you assume fossil fuel and gdp are coupled, but neither are coupled with well being? They are all orthogonal. Corporations lied with gdp to stress out individuals, so the corporations could be more stable. It's not growth that has gotten us into this mess; it's corporate stability. Simply delicense an oil major, and they will become more responsible, all problems solved at once.
"It's not growth that has gotten us into this mess; it's corporate stability." NO, there is a clear linear relationship between the size of the global economy and the rate at which we degrade Earth's ability to support life. The whole industrialized capitalist civilization must be transformed into something that fits Earth's limits and the laws of nature. Total private sector economic activity must shrink by 50% or more, or we will still be heading for collapse.
😂 who knew that we just needed communism to make everyone rich
Socialism is not Communism.
USSR, China, GDR etc. weren’t even real about one of the above.
I'm rich. I own the Earth.
Keep denying reality.
Growth is not important for free capitalism, its only important for social state capitalism to finance gowernment spending. For true capitalism only one thing is important - freedom! And thats not what you offer here.
Growth is absolutely important for free capitalism. Investors will pull out of a corporation if that corporation does not grow, as otherwise their invested money will make them no money.
Businesses need to grow in order to pay back the interest on loans they take out.
Social control, rationing and confiscatory taxation....
"Social control, rationing and confiscatory taxation...." Taxation is a legitimate function of government, and redistributive economic policies must be a bedrock principle of any government that doesn't want society to devolve into the plutocracy that America has become. As for rationing, either we shrink the global economy and simplify our lifestyles--including with rationing of planet-killing products--or worsening ecological and societal collapse are inevitable. Policies must be based on Earth's limits, the basic needs of livings beings, and the laws of nature, not consumerist desires.
"Universal basic services", Jason's points at 23:15 outline the area of focus that we need as a society. I've independently arrived at the same conclusion, calling it Universal Basic Needs; that we need to break down and distribute the technological means of production of our basic needs and make them available to everybody. As opposed to the capital-intensive economies of scale method of production and then global supply chains to move our essential goods around the world, we need to create tech that meets or exceeds our current convenience or value and embed them in our smallest unit of society, the home. And this all must be done sustainably and non-emitting. Housing, food, energy production, artifact production, data connectivity, blockchain node for financial independence; our first step toward a sustainable, just, future involves making these basic needs available to all humans. Then leave all that aren't basic needs up to the capitalist market.
A society where all are safe and secure and have all they need for survival will bring in the next epoch of social and technological evolution. Creativity and exploration will explode and the next 1000 years would be unimaginably advanced.
Houses made of green hydrogen steel reinforced hemp crete home and commercial infrastructure up to a max 4 or 5 story height, carbon negative housing
Food produced in the kitchen with smart aeroponic farming appliances, that grow all a home's weekly vegetable needs according to their diet, including nutrient dense items like roots, onions, brassicas. Circumnavigation of conventional farming
Energy converted from the wind and/or solar to drive electrolysis, capturing pure hydrogen outside the home and feeding it into a fuel cell serving as electricity storage
Converting wave energy to compressed air/water energy storage to drive industrial electrolysis to produce green hydrogen and oxygen for the purpose of combustion in industry or vehicles, zero emission and able to retrofit all existing ICEs (there's a billion in the world...)
Home manufacturing with various 3D printing technologies, material made from plants, and every printer comes with a re-extruder that can re-use any previously used material making a closed loop. Update policy all manufacturers to use plastics that can be re-used by homes, made from plants, biodegradable and without the use of fossil fuels.
With the means of essential production embedded into the home, the need for a lot of infrastructure will be a lot less. Communities would be far more resilient, far more self-reliant, far less exposed to the risk and dependence of large corporations and the global supply chains, which are not anti-fragile enough to make it through climate change and geopolitical upheaval.
Economics, supply chains, industry, all of it elude the degrowthers.
How does one save the climate. It’s been changing for billions of years. Seems climaphobic to say what’s normal. We need more tolerance. The climate needs to express its truth.
Oil is good, prosperity is good, feeding my children meat is good. Mankind will benefit from oil for 1000’s of years. Billions of people will ensure that happens. Ask your self what are earths natural patters over thousands of years and stop denying it.
This is a great video, because it gives you a glimpse into absolute delusion.
The children of Georgescu-Roegen have the solution for everything in the world. They just need to be anoited kings.
why call such nonsense socialism? just because it's opposed to industrial capitalism doesn't mean it's 'socialism'!
Are EV SUVs ok? Just asking for a friend …
EV SUVs created by wasting enormous amounts of resources and energy to manufacture and then operate them? You don't even have to ask. There are no vehicles other than those that can be operated with human energy in the post-growth future. Think horses, bicycles and rowboats. EVs are just a cynical bright green lie, sorry to be the one to break it to you.
Horse energy is not human energy .... (just dislike how all this circles back to 'yeah, animal exploitation is ok, because WE!" it also brings back spectre of human exploitation, very physical one ... So I guess changing very base of inter-human, extra-human relations AND living within possible energy/material/labour limits should be goal ....
yeah not bad, but amputate the renewable BS cancer from the story, its making the rest of the material sound like april fools joke
Just a reminder for everybody advocating for socialism, that there is no benevolent oppression. By calling for policy changes you are implicitly submitting to the current system. The government is not your friend. New forms of civilization will and are already emerging. Don't use today's politicians as scapegoats. New social structures can be created with todays technology, you just have to get to work and build them, noone is stopping you(at least in the west). Stop complaining and start innovating instead.
"Just a reminder for everybody advocating for socialism, that there is no benevolent oppression." You just confused socialism with authoritarianism: They are different things.
Critical thinking or "Critical Thinking"?
This guy proves Milton Friedman’s point that it takes really smart people to convince themselves that really dumb ideas can make sense.
"This guy proves Milton Friedman’s point that it takes really smart people to convince themselves that really dumb ideas can make sense." Milton Friedman's ideas were some of the dumbest and most destructive the world has ever seen, as the accelerating unraveling of societies and ecosystems are partly due to the super-sizing of industrialized capitalism that Friedman championed.
Meanwhile, given that humans are collectively overshooting Earth's sustainable carrying capacity by about 75% per year, de-growth is simply the commonsense idea that we must learn to live within our Earth budget and share resources more fairly or face a horrific collapse of ecosystems and societies.
@@karlwheatley1244Hey, rere, Paul Erlich and his overpopulation theory has been thoroughly discredited for decades now. You clearly arent even aware of modern demographics, otherwise you'd know the earths population curve is currently at its zenith.
@@ClyDIley Given that humanity is currently overshooting Earth's sustainable carrying capacity by 75% and we are heading toward catastrophic ecological and societal collapse, and given that we wouldn't be already causing the breakdown of the ecosystems that support us if our population in all countries was 20% its current size, in what way has Ehrlich been "de-bunked"?
To be sure, industrialized economies and consumerist lifestyles are the biggest problems, but a growing population just supersizes those problems.
@@ClyDIley "You clearly arent even aware of modern demographics, otherwise you'd know the earths population curve is currently at its zenith." Actually, it's due to peak a little before 2040, but just the 2 billion richest people on Earth would cause worsening ecological and societal collapse if they hold onto industrialized capitalist economies and consumerist lifestyles.
The point is that modern civilization itself is what's unsustainable, and a larger population of people is a threat multiplier. We should eventually get back to maybe 100 million to 500 million humans, but the transition needs to be humane and fair.
Ahh global communism 👎🏻
'Critical' as in...Critical Theory?
😨😨😨😨
Jusr a harsh warning. This piece is bad activist journalism. Quote from the interviewer: "I didn't read your book yet"... What!? So what are we listening to then here? Seriously, this certainly is not a critical approach to Jason Hickel's rather bizarre theory, but far more a podium to give Hickel the time to spur his neomarxist propaganda. Softball questions in a conversation where the interviewer and Hickel totally agree on all topics and where degrowth is projected as the holy grail for the saviour of the planet. Does it mean destruction of society as we know it, by stagnation and poverty. Yes of course! That's the the whole purpose of this neomarxism. After the entire breakdown of the capitalist society, utopia will come as an inevitable prediction. At least that is what they are lied to, expect, and what they believe in. It is however pseudoscience propagated by false premises and exploited by people attracted by power. Questions I would ask: 1) what are the risks of imposing your degrowth model, 2) what would you do with people who dont want your system, 3) there are certain risks that the degrowth society could lead to stagnation in technology, since degrowth annuls profit based models, what is your reaction, 4) there are countries that are in desperate need of food by import, as became clearly visible by the war in Ukraine. How would you propagate degrowth to countries as Egypt, Sudan, and Somalia? 5) what if degrowth means a return to a agricultural non-technological society, would you welcome that? 6) what if large parts of the population are affected by poverty and hunger during the implication of your degrowth plan, would you return to the prior capitalist situation, 7) what if your degrowth party was in power and a majority of the people would want to return to the prior situation, would you agree on that, or oppress the uprising as a means to save the planet, and condemn the people as dumb and ignorant?
"Neomarxism" 😂 bro I can tell you just learned the concept from a James Lindsay video
This is not Hickels theory. Degrowth has been around for decades.
Perhaps the trigger word for conservatives (socialism) could be altered.
reactionaries are triggered by anything; capitalists will just say that anything for the planet is "woke indoctrination" and they will be just a triggered, all you can do is educate the ignorant and ignore the stupid while fighting the evil.
UNLESS RICH COUNTRIES ADOPT A PLANNED ECONOMY, DEGROWTH IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE PLUTOCRACY WILL NOT ALLOW A PLANNED ECONOMY THAT LIMITS GREED. PLUTOCRACY RULES, FOLKS. SO DREAM ON
Unfortunately, you might be right. However, we either find a fair way to limit growth, or nature will take care of it, and it that case it will be ugly !
Wow, there are so many assumptions made here. This is so incredibly unfeasible. This rings like throwing out a bunch of catch phrases without any substantiation, so it sounds moral but without the moral backing.
Wow that's crazy man, wanna give any particular examples so we can have a reasonable or discussion or would you prefer to keep your critique purposefully vague.
Give specific examples so you can contribute to the conversation and debate in a substantive way
Your channel is called planet critical, yet you dont ask a single critical question or challenge any of his assumptions …no wonder the left is loosing its appeal
"Your channel is called planet critical, yet you dont ask a single critical question or challenge any of his assumptions" It's about the critical state of the web of life, but if you want critical questions, then challenge his assumptions yourself.
"no wonder the left is losing its appeal" Actually, the left is being proven right over and over again, from climate to biodiversity to economics to governance.
OMG this guy is the biggest joker I have come through on YT, the amount of misinformation he pushes is outrageous
While "degrowth" in some form seems to be a necessary part of the solution to various current environmental challenges, I keep thinking that they're full of bad ideas too. "A shorter work week" may be great for many office jobs (of which there are a lot) - but there are huge sectors of the economy where it won't, and many areas where the changing demographic situation (more retirees, fewer young workers) will mean that we are going to need LONGER working hours (healthcare and eldercare especially). "A shorter work week" also doesn't apply to business owners, nor higher level executives, who often work insanely long hours. So if you are trying to address inequality of income, you need other tools. "Ending unemployment" is also a pipe-dream, unless you treat people like commodities who can be moved to live in hostel housing wherever they are needed as workers. The reality is that half the population has (by definition) an IQ below 100, and is not suitable for working in fast-changing jobs with a high educational requirement; there are a LOT of people with IQs below 85 who have difficulty with ANY jobs in the modern economy, never mind those who are disabled, elderly, or otherwise incapable.
Likewise, the idea that we can collectively reach consensus on anything is simply at odds with reality. So, making a joint decision on what types of goods and products etc. are bad for society is NOT going to be possible unless the decision is simply imposed by a ruling elite of "the chosen", ie. a tyranny. Trying to regulate what kinds of products can and should be banned (because they are unsustainable) also implies a degree of bureaucratic control that would simply kill innovation, at a time when we need it more than ever - and the economy as well of course.
As much as capitalism has been an engine driving inequality and wasteful use of resources, it is also a system that promises that we can all grow rich, or at least much better off than we used to be (while the fossil fuels last, that is). Aiming for equality of wealth instead is achievable, but all previous (mostly communist) experiments have shown that the greater the equality, the more EVERYONE is poorer and worse off - in access to food, material products, and even liberty. The Capitalism train is running out of track (i.e. limited metal and fuel resources, too much pollution etc.), so we desperately need viable alternatives... but we're going to have to evolve our society and economies (of different countries and regions) through trial and error, as we always do. We're probably going to need a lot of different small-scale "pilot projects" in different countries to see what works and what doesn't, to share lessons learned. Unfortunately, some of these may succeed in their environmental goals (reduced use of resources), but fail for other reasons (e.g. new problems, or failing to cope with political problems etc.) - the successful experiments will be those that survive, not those who go in with a fixed idea of what SHOULD work.
I still keep thinking that a much simpler approach could be used to drive the same kinds of results. For example, a high enough universal carbon tax (redistributed in equal amounts to all individuals, or with a corresponding carbon budget allocation per person as per Steve Keen). Since resource production requires energy, this kind of market incentive should (theoretically) drive economies towards using less resources, and value people skills and labor more. (Pollution remains a problem, unfortunately, unless sufficiently regulated.) Interestingly, the Ukraine war price spike in fossil fuels has been described as being effectively the first universal carbon tax. It will be interesting to see if that actually drives any climate-friendly changes in the economy.
reformulation of Malthusian thinking
Marxist!!!!!
Degrowth is only possible in capitalism is with a reduction in population. Otherwise degrowth is only possible if the government owns the means of production which is a crock
Well, industrialized capitalism must be replaced, or else catastrophic collapse is guaranteed.
Bring on Vandana Shiva. Masterful advocate.
It's not just that "renewables" require more energy on a continuing basis because of resource extraction to make them, but this grid of transmission lines required for larger solar and wind farms does not yet exist. And THAT system is a major energy and resources drain as well. And there has been discussions about expanding this grid WORLDWIDE. So "renewables" owned by major corporations is only a pretext for ever more consumption and not about reducing energy consumption in ANY way.
So basicaly he wants to "End the FED"
What you guys are asking for is EcoStalinism. The word "necessary" does a lot of heavy lifting in this conversation. What is "unnecessary" production? Most of our hobbies and interests are unnecessary so who determines what is produced and what isn't? The economy is so vast and caters to so many different interests; the idea that a benevolent state will sit there and micromanage it all is laughable. The best example you have of this is the Soviet Union and I think we all know how great that worked out. I'm sure these people are well meaning but we'd all effectively be prisoners in the state of Kim-Jong Hickel.
This planet ain't big enough for the both of us!
God bless every word in your comment 🙏 🙌 ❤️
It is the west which has been 'organising' production these last decades. And it is getting worse. Stalin should never be compared to any sort of socialism. He was never a socialist with his state growth and his socialism in one country: National Socialist: Nazi. !!
You’re fighting the wrong enemy, Brett. I don’t blame you, there’s a lot of red-scare propaganda out there, specifically designed to make you afraid of alternatives to capitalism. The worlds elites want you and I to fight each other so we do not unite against our common enemy: the ruling class. Keep an open heart and stay curious, the truth is buried but it’s out there.
The point is that currently the majority of people have no control over what is produced. Rather, those with accumulated wealth (capital) have the power to decide how we allocate resources.
If we have a more democratic economy, then people have more of a say in what is ‘necessary’.
37:31 were you just talking about yourself and your plans?! 😆 🤣 😅😂
5:18 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:22 *_Designed to break down_* has nothing to do with *_planned obsolescence._*