zlacker

There is no way this world exists without an authoritarian global government.

Have you analyzed the impact of the total elimination of 4 car garages, golf courses, "trinkets", and enforced 5-year upgrades on devices? do those rank among the highest-impact against climate change, or do you just not like them very much?

Do you expect that the people who would have the authority to make and enforce these decisions agree with you about which things are important or not, and have also done the cost-benefit analyses correctly and in good faith?

And they're resistant to buy-off by the industries that have the most to lose under a degrowth paradigm?

>>trts+(OP)
I never said anything about forcing this idea on other people. I believe that degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people. I believe that this change needs to start from the local level, in an organic way, instead of being signed into law and all dissenters be crushed. By engaging locally, logistics and politics problems that you speak of are pretty much solved.

I believe that I can change people's opinion by talking about this possible world, and they are completely free to act how they wish. I also think that doing these things are straight selfish benefits for you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day)

>>trts+(OP)
Bullshit.

Bike, ped, and rail infrastructure can be built at the national, state, and sometimes even local level. These things all reduce the need for owning so many cars.

Governments at any level can reduce how much they subsidize waste removal. Make people pay if they want to throw out more than is reasonable.

Carbon taxes can be levied against corporations, which would flow down to consumers and incentivize carbon-aware spending habits.

>>pictur+O1
That’s very optimistic!

>>trts+(OP)
In fairness a large authoritarian government is what makes car ownership a virtual necessity by outlawing city design that works well without a car.

>>epgui+G4
Sure is! Optimism is our best bet. But also, reading and learning changed my opinion, so I'm confident words can change other's opinions too

>>trts+(OP)
> There is no way this world exists without an authoritarian global government.

The world does not care about humans and will be okay without us trying to micromanage.

The Romans had a long stretch of expansive rule, though it was not highly authoritarian. Klaus Schwab's marxist ideas will fail, and it will be an exiting decade until political upheaval (maybe ~2032).

>>kdmcco+93
> Governments at any level can reduce how much they subsidize waste removal.

Are you in USA? What specific city/county/State goverment practices are problematic? I am interested in seeing the actual codes/laws.

>>CalRob+I4
Those authoritarian local governments are "democracies"

Tyranny of the majority is tyranny nonetheless

Blocking cultural change and progress.

>>landem+Ga
Klaus Schwab a Marxist?

ROTFL

>>pictur+O1
Signed, this is what I believe as well; I also think there are technological solutions, but technology alone won't save us this time, because of the scale of the issue. How much carbon we need to remove from the atmosphere even optimistically (it's already planned that we need to remove an astronomical amount! even for the less good projections) is frankly nuts, astronomical. Removing carbon is much, much more difficult than burning buried carbon.

I also echo the sentiment that we should both create a culture of questioning excesses, enjoying a simplified lifestyle of essentials: good health (address pollution, agriculture filled with toxic compounds, etc.), peace, arts and culture, instead of often self-destructive excesses; and that we should look at effective interventions: feeling good about it is not enough, we need actual effective change!

Some of the most effective changes you can do individually[1] is (1) reducing meat consumption significantly;[2] (2) Less air travel (3) Use alternative forms of transportation (bike, walk, public transit, live near work?).

(Of course, if you have a huge house with tons of appliances... I'm sure that's highly significant!)

I'm doing all those things personally. And as honest as I can: I think my health and wellbeing genuinely improved (I've lost weight due to better mostly-plant diet, am much more fit due to walking and public transit; I guess there's a psychological factor from knowing I'm helping too!). Public transit is the most inconvenient sometimes (other times it's far more convenient), but then I'm not absolute and take a ride faring app every now and then. Living this way isn't only possible, it's genuinely good.

Discovering places nearby to travel and connecting with local history and culture is something I also think we could do a lot more.

And by all means, be politically active on this issue! (I can't change things like energy matrix with individual habits, but I can vote well)

I'm with you dude :) Hack the planet!

[1] This seems to be a pretty good source: https://theconversation.com/here-are-the-most-effective-thin... I'm sure there are others similar as well

[2] That's good for animals too :)

>>pictur+z5
I beg to differ. Unwavering optimism that things will be fine is exactly how we got where we are today; decades of knowing global warming is on the horizon with nowhere near enough response.

>>trts+(OP)
> There is no way this world exists without an authoritarian global government.

I agree, it will be hard to change opinions (especially in very liberal countries like the US, where socialism is apparently a very bad word).

But the world we are heading towards without degrowth is a world of global instability, wars, famines (for everyone, not just the poor countries for once).

I don't see democracy surviving in such a world.

>>CalRob+I4
That makes absolutely no sense to me.

>>palata+wF
In many places (including virtually all of the US), if you try to turn a single family home into a few apartments with a shop downstairs, or build a restaurant without parking, put a grocery store or a corner shop in an area zoned residential, etc. then your local authoritarian government will stop you.

>>worik+Nj
It's kind of a weird case where you have a problem of incentives. Almost any home owner (and I am one!) can benefit financially by ensuring their home in a given area remains scarce, so votes to prevent new housing construction. But the people who would benefit from that housing being built can't vote, because they don't live there.

Also, the beneficiaries of new housing construction are diffuse (if I want to move to Berkeley I want to have a choice of housing, but I'm not likely to go to community meetings to voice support for any particular project), while the opponents are concentrated (if I have a $2 million house right by BART in Berkeley, I have a very strong incentive to prevent new home construction near me, and I will definitely go to community meetings).

In a sense, this is a failure of democracy - there are parties whose voices are unheard but (arguably) deserve representation.

Even for people whose desires re: housing should be net neutral, it doesn't pan out. If I live in Berkeley but want to move to SF, I want to see SF build lots of homes and Berkeley to build none. But I can only vote in Berkeley, so my net voting behavior is anti-housing. Even if there is someone else in SF who wants the exact same thing but in reverse!

>>CalRob+1O1
Is it really your local authoritarian government, or your local/city/state government bowing to your neighbours' (admittedly immoral) desires?

>>CalRob+zO1
This seems like an oversimplification of the issue. The people I know who oppose development are all older residents who have lived in the area for decades and want to preserve their way of life. They’re already house rich to the point that it’s difficult for them to move somewhere else (due to Prop 13 in CA their taxes would skyrocket). On the other hand the younger newer homeowners I know are all pro development.