zlacker

"Degrowth" is code for "poor people should have fewer things"

>>jiofj+(OP)
Stop telling me what I mean. No, I believe that degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people. This is why I say comfort cannot be sacrificed, because I see myself in this future too.

>>pictur+k
People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves, so governments turned authoritarian will force them, but will do so in a way that won't affect the rich.

For example, low emission zones for cars - you have to have a new car to be able to drive in a low emission zone. So, who can afford it?

Cheap airplane tickets, make them more expensive - who will be able to afford to fly? Beef contaminates, make it more expensive, same result.

You can follow the logic from there.

>>pictur+k
"The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey")."

>>jiofj+(OP)
Yeah I mean that’s pretty obvious. If you increase the cost of pollution then things will be more expensive, including for the poor. Still pretty disingenuous since the poor pretty much always get the short end of the straw by most economic crisis management, even though they are the least responsible for having created. Eg bailouts of irresponsible speculators.

Another aspect is that crises are really bad for the poor. Wars, pandemics and depressions is when the biggest poor-to-rich wealth transfers occur. Preventing crises is typically better for the poor than meager after-the-fact concessions.

>>jiofj+I
"People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves" is an immediate flaw, because, well, mere ideas were enough to convince me to change some of the ways I act. You're thinking about all this from policy at the global or national scale, but these ideas are closer to the local and organic level

It's actually a little concerning how your line of reasoning seems to follow the most dystopian path, can't you see any other way of it happening?

>>pictur+N3
Low emission zones already exist and have existed for years.

"Airplane tickets are too cheap" is a talking point of French politicians recently. It's likely they will do something about it.

The EU already has a law in place saying no more regular cars can be sold starting in 2035. Of course, with a nice exception for Ferraris.

These dystopian things are happening now, I'm not imagining things.

>>jiofj+I
This list of yours are all imposed solutions.

I’m not the OP, but if I take one less flight, avoid a car trip and choose not to eat beef, the same has happened with no regulation change.

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, small steps help and the OPs positive approach is very different to the ‘tax it’ approach you have described.

>>jiofj+s4
A town with no cars is about the least dystopian thing I can imagine.

Banning them all would make my life difficult in many ways, but there would be some really huge upsides.

>>jiofj+s4
That's all.. specifically what I said I'm against? They're politicians and corporations manipulating you with distractions. Degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people.

>>lostlo+k5
> there would be some really huge upsides.

You can live in Mackinak and try out the no car lifestyle. Watch out for the crap and piss in the gutters. https://www.michigan.org/city/mackinac-island

>>jiofj+(OP)
I guess you know it, but just in case: "degrowth" is the opposite of "growth". "Growth" is the thing that is killing the planet.

"Green growth" is a utopia from people who haven't understood the problem yet.

>>pictur+k
No, "degrowth as a model for combating climate change" is indeed fundamentally about poor people. Because there will be about 8 billion of not-westerners in a few decades, and they rapidly get out of poverty, increasing their carbon impact. Look at Chinese emissions; multiply by a few times and you get Africa and South-East Asia getting somewhat closer to the global middle class in 50 years without technological decoupling. On the other hand, if countries can grow out of poverty sustainably, there is no reason for already developed countries to "degrow".

Talking about "degrowth" doesn't just imply that you somehow get a say in allowing countries to grow, but also suggests that people aren't allowed to get out of poverty. This is unconscionable and unrealistic, a distraction from the only real answer — engineering our way out of it.