|
Peanut President posted:then don't take their name in vain i was clearly using the modern derogatory usage instead of the historical one!!
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
Impermanent posted:you keep doing this bit as though degrowth were a: the only way to refer to this kind of basic plannign and b: not invented wholecloth in the past couple years by dipshits who nut to images of weeds peeking up through sidewalks degrowth goes back at least as far as Limits to growth, which was published in 1972 (making it only a slightly newer concept than growth, which was invented wholecloth by the OECD in the 60s to replace levels of employment and output as key economic indices)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:Why even be a leftist when the singulairty is right around the corner this is such a dumbshit view, if you think everyone skeptical of what you're advocating is some strawman libertarian science pwns guy i dont know what to tell you. this is reacting against that embarassing mileau by being a different kind of moron and calling it degrowth
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:capitalism produces tons and tons of superfluous poo poo (that is also made artificially scarce through the same processes but that’s not really relevant) and that is what’s supposed to be degrown!! There's a huge difference between not producing goods because doing so is a pointless waste of resources that degrades our lives and the lives of future generations and having non-production as the end goal in itself.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
THS posted:this is such a dumbshit view, if you think everyone skeptical of what you're advocating is some strawman libertarian science pwns guy i dont know what to tell you. this is reacting against that embarassing mileau by being a different kind of moron and calling it degrowth lol yeah that's why we're making fun of you and not because your proposal is basically this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Sq1Nr58hM
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Microcline posted:There's a huge difference between not producing goods because doing so is a pointless waste of resources that degrades our lives and the lives of future generations and having non-production as the end goal in itself. and the first thing you said is the end goal of degrowth so... i mean your argument is like criticizing anticapitalism by saying that its end goal is merely abolishing capitalism.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:any planetary socialist society has to anticipate that at some point it has to "degrow" in absolute economic terms i must again disagree, this is the *least* difficult problems facing a marxist revolution today, in that what decently provided for people want to produce and to consume mostly coincide and is fundamentally ephemeral (e.g., for a very simplified example: we'd like to drink good beer and see (or listen to) cool bands; and, on the flipside: we'd like to make good beer and play in cool bands; all of which is perfectly sustainable up to the point humanity existing is). a lot of those ideas were formed in an age where the fear was overpopulation, but that we know, I think quite conclusively, was a misunderstanding of the dynamic. it is a huge task to figure out the basics: food, housing, and healthcare for all, but the dynamic is such that incrementally making progress on that will make the population decrease, and what does growth actually mean from there? i don't think (with reasonable Incentives; we already assumed a revolution) people will start to wish for a huge pile of platinum mixed with rare earth minerals forged in a fire of fossil fuels. rather they'll intuitively assign value to the cooler band and the better beer (again, specifics for the sake of argument), and neither has a higher ecological cost than the less cool/good one that preceded it (or baseline the people involved existing pretty much). and i guess the key point on the debate going on: if you think the new band is better now then that is growth in value, and if we're humans we'll like the new thing more forever (because, to some extent, we devalue the old thing) except if you mean in the broad sense where with a multi-millenial perspective resources nonetheless run out, but in that case I really must suggest you turn to religion, because in politics there is enough to be done considering establishing a first new equilibrium a marxist revolution would be a jerk upwards in value, because value is indeed the numbers people assign quite naturally to the good things in their lives. well, in practice it would not appear as such, since structure of thigns leaves the number amassed with the rich, but the artificiality of that state of affairs is quite apparent in the fact that the things the majority of humanity (more and more of which are getting lifted out of abject poverty, helping the cause) value align pretty well with even the shallow example i picked here.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Bryter posted:degrowth goes back at least as far as Limits to growth, which was published in 1972 (making it only a slightly newer concept than growth, which was invented wholecloth by the OECD in the 60s to replace levels of employment and output as key economic indices) ah ok that is actually an interesting point - but how much does that have in common with twitter meme degrowth and people whose political platform is that comic of office workers moving to a tribal society. If degrowth as a concept is just orienting around 'we don't need so many brands of toothpaste' where is the delineation between that and regressive nostalgic pastoralism and telling people to google pol pot.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:i must again disagree, this is the *least* difficult problems facing a marxist revolution today, in that what decently provided for people want to produce and to consume mostly coincide and is fundamentally ephemeral (e.g., for a very simplified example: we'd like to drink good beer and see (or listen to) cool bands; and, on the flipside: we'd like to make good beer and play in cool bands; all of which is perfectly sustainable up to the point humanity existing is). a lot of those ideas were formed in an age where the fear was overpopulation, but that we know, I think quite conclusively, was a misunderstanding of the dynamic. it is a huge task to figure out the basics: food, housing, and healthcare for all, but the dynamic is such that incrementally making progress on that will make the population decrease, and what does growth actually mean from there? i don't think (with reasonable Incentives; we already assumed a revolution) people will start to wish for a huge pile of platinum mixed with rare earth minerals forged in a fire of fossil fuels. rather they'll intuitively assign value to the cooler band and the better beer (again, specifics for the sake of argument), and neither has a higher ecological cost than the less cool/good one that preceded it (or baseline the people involved existing pretty much). and i guess the key point on the debate going on: if you think the new band is better now then that is growth in value, and if we're humans we'll like the new thing more forever (because, to some extent, we devalue the old thing) none of this word salad has anything to do with economic growth
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:and the first thing you said is the end goal of degrowth so... anticapitalism isn't a positive structure, which isn't to say that it's bad, but that it doesn't present an explicit alternative. fascism is anti-capitalism for example, so I think you can criticize anti-capitalism for the same reason all that is to say that industrial production isn't inherently bad, which I feel is at least part of the ideology that is degrowth
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Bryter posted:none of this word salad has anything to do with economic growth economic value is what people is willing to pay for a thing, and if the thing is non-material then the ecological cost is nil (outside, again, of labor). the top growth industries of today are not in the business of making material things. the beer is material, but i figured the plant-life involved would largely substitute other sustenance.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:lol yeah that's why we're making fun of you and not because your proposal is basically this: my proposal is literally just socialist economics and a command economy, malthusian scum
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Microcline posted:There's a huge difference between not producing goods because doing so is a pointless waste of resources that degrades our lives and the lives of future generations and having non-production as the end goal in itself. Only weird anprims nobody listens to want "non-production", every person I've seen call for degrowth has called for the destruction of the superfluous bullshit commodity fetish crap, resource intensive vanity garbage, and garbage that borrows heavily from the future to provide little value today. It goes hand in hand with reimagined social relations between people, families, communities, and our relationship to our labor/production as well. Also building more sustainable food production and lifestyles, it also probably will involve giving up some luxury and convenience, which causes 80% of people to plug their fingers in their ears and start screaming about eco fascism We're on the right track with pointing the blame for climate change at mega production outfits, but those outfits are still run by and service the wants and needs of people, those super polluting tankers have an ocean of plastic fantastic crap theyre shuttling around on them. The dark matter of the revolution nobody wants to recognize is how much personal development/growth/change/sacrifice will be necessary to save the god damned species + what's left of life on earth.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
let's define what we mean by degrowth, because i think people are confused about terms and arguing past eachother. degrowth is a stupid bullshit idea for babies who want billions of people to starve, whereas communism is an ideology that advocates democratic industrial production of abundant goods for everyone. i hope that clears everything up so this conversation can become more respectful going forward
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Degrowth is a stupid word
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
turning your arable land into a dustbowl because you didn't change your approach to food production is just as stupid as starving to death because you killed all the birds in a fit of communist reverly
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
smarxist posted:turning your arable land into a dustbowl because you didn't change your approach to food production is just as stupid as starving to death because you killed all the birds in a fit of communist reverly drat, degrowth just means modern agricultural practices? i guess i support it then
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
i dont think anyone is arguing that we shouldnt like, farm food in a sustainable fashion. capitalists control food production, though
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
we should rename communism de-capitalism and see how it improves the brand
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
THS posted:let's define what we mean by degrowth, because i think people are confused about terms and arguing past eachother. degrowth is a stupid bullshit idea for babies who want billions of people to starve, whereas communism is an ideology that advocates democratic industrial production of abundant goods for everyone. i hope that clears everything up so this conversation can become more respectful going forward did you use your parents' credit card to buy an account?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:economic value is what people is willing to pay for a thing, and if the thing is non-material then the ecological cost is nil (outside, again, of labor). the top growth industries of today are not in the business of making material things. growth measures changes in market value, not economic value and the ecological impact of non-material things such as your beloved netflix is in fact real and measurable, I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
degrowth makes me think im about to start hearing a grad student drone on for hours about something boring as hell
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:did you use your parents' credit card to buy an account? yes, my original account in 2002 was on my dads debit card
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
smarxist posted:turning your arable land into a dustbowl because you didn't change your approach to food production is just as stupid as starving to death because you killed all the birds in a fit of communist reverly isn't reducing beef ranching to increase bug meat farming really just a net neutral change? like the thing that's being reduced here is methane emissions, not available food
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:and the first thing you said is the end goal of degrowth so... I'm ideologically anti-capitalism. Capitalism has to be eradicated. I'm not ideologically anti-growth or anti-industry. smarxist posted:We're on the right track with pointing the blame for climate change at mega production outfits, but those outfits are still run by and service the wants and needs of people, those super polluting tankers have an ocean of plastic fantastic crap theyre shuttling around on them. The dark matter of the revolution nobody wants to recognize is how much personal development/growth/change/sacrifice will be necessary to save the god damned species + what's left of life on earth. Achieving communism might require dying in a trench to defend the revolution from fascism, but that doesn't mean the purpose of revolution is dying in a trench.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
and there aren't any degrowth people talking about smashing all the John Deere equipment and destroying food production chains it's not a super well developed idea and has a lot of people clamoring to fit their agenda onto it, but "seizing the means", to me, is no longer a relevant or sufficient idea to survive as a species. it's rhetoric from before global warming and the heavy toll our modern lifestyle puts on all aspects of the biosphere and every living creature trying to make sure the groundwork of any liberatory movement has the ideas of sustainability, efficiency, survival, and a more respectful and harmonious relationship with nature present, and criticizing "champagne socialist" bullshit isn't out of line to me
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
degrowth frames the argument in terms of capitalist concepts of stuff like gdp. it's accepting a conception of economics that uses free market assumptions of what growth means. calling anti-consumerism and anti-waste measures degrowth is possibly the worst way to sell a political ideology that i can think of
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
so come up with a better word for shutting a bunch of factories making GBS threads out useless garbage to fill up the dollar stores, idc to me, it's just shorthand for a bunch of sustainability ideas, if there's a larger solidified movement using it to mean starving everyone, then maybe it doesn't work for my purposes as a concept
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
sorry folks, we had to cancel communism after discovering that it would involve diverting the output of the videogame factory for a few years
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
communism. because under communism the workers wouldnt choose to poo poo out a bunch of useless garbage to fill up dollar stores
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
smarxist posted:and there aren't any degrowth people talking about smashing all the John Deere equipment and destroying food production chains but de-industrialization of agriculture IS a huge part of degrowth from what I've seen, so I don't know how to resolve that contradiction. this conversation started with this article, which I recommend people read critically: https://communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/ and this passage in particular: quote:We cannot keep things the same and change everything. We need a revolution, a break with capital and its killing compulsions, though what that looks like in the twenty-first century is very much an open question. A revolution that had as its aim the flourishing of all human life would certainly mean immediate decarbonization, a rapid decrease in energy use for those in the industrialized global north, no more cement, very little steel, almost no air travel, walkable human settlements, passive heating and cooling, a total transformation of agriculture, and a diminishment of animal pasture by an order of magnitude at least. All of this is possible, but not if we continue to shovel one half of all the wealth produced on the planet into the maw of capital, not if we continue to sacrifice some fraction of each generation by sending them into the pits, not if we continue to allow those whose only aim is profit to decide how we live. and there's no consideration for what no cement, no air travel, no steel, etc even means. it's so academic i can't grasp it
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:but de-industrialization of agriculture IS a huge part of degrowth from what I've seen, so I don't know how to resolve that contradiction. sounds like distant end game goals to me more than "this is zero day revolutionary practice"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Bryter posted:growth measures changes in market value, not economic value and the ecological impact of non-material things such as your beloved netflix is in fact real and measurable, I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise i am not sure the distinction between market and economic value makes sense currently (i tend to conflate them as the market-based economy is the current reality), but i'll easily cede the point that there may come a point where bits globally transmitted per person could be a valid conversation yeah. i *kind* of doubt it'll get to the forefront in my lifetime, but i don't dare just deny that possibility, and it'd be a pretty exciting turn to have that come to the forefront. smarxist posted:is no longer a relevant or sufficient idea to survive as a species. this is misleading phrasing though. even if we could fry the earth to let elon musk and grimes start afresh on mars i don't think any of us would go for that outcome. Cybernetic Vermin fucked around with this message at 23:33 on May 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
drat i cant wait to live in a world with no steel and no cement so i can live in a dirt hut and hand grind organic buckwheat all day
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
the bottom line is that our current material lives are unsustainable, and sustainability is probably going to exist somewhere in the murky unexplored area between mud huts and concrete jungles, but it'll necessarily involve changes to comfy sedentary first world lifestyles and scaling back of productive capacity, if only in the interim as new technologies are pursued/developed i know it's like acid on the skin of every air conditioned computer toucher who hasn't really done a day of physical labor in their entire lives, and a lot of it is probably going to suck! for us anyway, but we'll raise better people than us with the correct ideas about how to live and what to prioritize, and their brains won't be broken by capitalism, and they'll raise better people still, and we'll die and so will our whining
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
smarxist posted:Only weird anprims nobody listens to want "non-production", every person I've seen call for degrowth has called for the destruction of the superfluous bullshit commodity fetish crap, resource intensive vanity garbage, and garbage that borrows heavily from the future to provide little value today. The issue I run into is that there's a lot of confusion, in both senses, between commodity fetish crap and actual improvements in what we can do with x amount of raw material (where the scale of new production and those with access to the new, improved production is driven by commodity fetishism and the ability under capitalism to offload externalities.) Take the cell phone example that got the thread onto this - we're still seeing logarithmic increases in capability during expected functional lifetime. There's obviously something very wrong with a system where it's expected that if I get a midrange phone today it's basically spending $200 on a brand-new reissue of the guts of a 2016 flagship packaged in a wedge of plastic that marks me as proletarian rather than just being handed a cleaned-up and cleaned-off 2016 flagship, but degrowth, certainly degrowth advocates, seem to always wade into a thread with an argument that could be as much "why do you need a '89 Civic when you have a '59 Edsel" as "why do you need a '19 Civic when you have a '89 Civic".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Mandoric posted:The issue I run into is that there's a lot of confusion, in both senses, between commodity fetish crap and actual improvements in what we can do with x amount of raw material (where the scale of new production and those with access to the new, improved production is driven by commodity fetishism and the ability under capitalism to offload externalities.) Take the cell phone example that got the thread onto this - we're still seeing logarithmic increases in capability during expected functional lifetime. There's obviously something very wrong with a system where it's expected that if I get a midrange phone today it's basically spending $200 on a brand-new reissue of the guts of a 2016 flagship packaged in a wedge of plastic that marks me as proletarian rather than just being handed a cleaned-up and cleaned-off 2016 flagship, but degrowth, certainly degrowth advocates, seem to always wade into a thread with an argument that could be as much "why do you need a '89 Civic when you have a '59 Edsel" as "why do you need a '19 Civic when you have a '89 Civic". I did this with my phone when the screen broke: bought a bricked phone for $50 and paid labor of like $60 to get its guts swapped out with the bricked phone brand newish-looking S4 without the in-store hassle
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
production has to be sustainable, but it has to be sustainable for 7 billion people or more, and that necessitates things like steel and cement and concrete jungles - and arguing otherwise is accepting that billions have to die for your political ideology to be put into practice
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
smarxist posted:the bottom line is that our current material lives are unsustainable, and sustainability is probably going to exist somewhere in the murky unexplored area between mud huts and concrete jungles, but it'll necessarily involve changes to comfy sedentary first world lifestyles and scaling back of productive capacity, if only in the interim as new technologies are pursued/developed okay, now i think the confusion comes from a misunderstanding of what's going to happen and when. because if the revolution happened tomorrow, we still have like a century of suck to go through fixing the environment and all sorts of other poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
can we all agree at least to stop draining major aquifers to grow loving corn?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:51
|
|