Hi everyone watching and reading this, note that on grassroots level we created the Degrowth Collective, an international organization, where we attempt to create a global network of grassroots groups that can push degrowth into the Overton window, work with labor unions to advance their demands aligned with degrowth, and aim at pushing political power towards degrowth. Spread the word about us, and join us as members!
Interesting discussion, and to me, it is very obvious that post-growth is the path we should take. However, we should also consider the influence of finance. Our entire monetary system is based on debt. And debt is a huge problem for post-growth. Why? Debt only makes sense if growth is expected. Similarly, stock holders expect growth. Everything in finance is based on the expectation of growth, and is therefore incompatible with post-growth. So while I applaud most of the suggestions, I'm afraid it will all fail if we keep ignoring the elephant in the room. We need an alternative monetary system if we want post-growth. That is the general thesis of the book I'm currently writing. It also tries to provide more sustainable, egalitarian solutions.
I'd love to hear the details: I'm writing a book about the scale of the societal transformation needed, and couldn't quite figure out what happens with finance and the monetary system.
@@karlwheatley1244 all debt will need to be erased as a new system of resources + labour + technology + exchange/ distribution takes over. It's a crucial aspect to cover in detail, even the idea of insurance needs to be discussed.
The current monetary system ponzi-scheme was fraudulent from the outset and must be "rationalized" The quantitatively-eased systematic-currency-degradation negative-sum-game is an illegitimate predatory-parasitic exploitation and extraction mechanism and must be unwound.
Great conversation, thanks! As interesting and necessary laying of theoretical foundations is, I am always very interested in practical everyday concepts of living. As one example 15 sqm of living space pp. under middle European climate conditions provisioning a minimum room temp. of 20 deg C. was proposed by Julia. I personally find it important that researchers either partially or continuously try to live under these proposed conditions themselves. Niko Paech, publishing on Post-Growth in Germany, always impressed and convinced me by living up to the standards he developed in his research. Approaching Kant’s 300th birthday this also appears to be sort of a question of Categorical Imperative to me.
Merci pour ce bel épisode! Est-il possible de voir la liste des recommandations mentionnées à la fin, en particulier le podcast de Jacobin mag (je crois?) de Giorgos et la liste des projets dont parlait Julia? 🙏
I’m an economics PhD student receiving the “indoctrination” mentioned at 22:25 as I type this lol I agree the utility/profit maximization paradigm is fundamental to econ and it’s hard to look beyond it. Still, environmental econ grapples with the themes posed here although there ain’t much about degrowth as far as I know
Oh come on Julia you are smart enough to see the obvious. Bend or break? Growth will end. Consumption is decoupled from social outcomes only when the basics for survival food, water, sanitation, housing, education and health are accounted for.
Oh come on Aristide Athanassiadis you dont use a linear calculation to define urban residential footprints, Thats what Geographical Information Systems are for, accounting for all sorts of urban constraints, natural and built features and thresholds.
You are talking about a movement and it needs to be called a movement. Why? Because you are going to need simple outside the boundaries of the monetary system. I know this for sure, I like the sound of it. Let's create some attention!
"the necessity of degrowth" is ambiguous. I know JuliaSteinberger has research demonstrating it is possible, but necessary is different. Stopping climate from getting worse is necessary. Both for political and practical reasons, the simplest way to stop climate from getting worse is the only way that will work. Delicense an oil major. Fortunately for most, unfortunately for those that cannot make that demand because of repressed emotions, that changes everything. But putting "change everything" before "destroy an oil company" is putting the cart before the horse.
"optimizing system" is ambiguous. I'm even more skeptical of value and demand than you, because I only had econ101 indoctrination before reading DoughnutEconomics; in contrast y'all got economic degrees before reading DoughnutEconomics. Perhaps that's why I'm also skeptical about ownership. You think changing ownership will change what workers do? Workers are habitual, and consumers are impulsive; there is no hope there. The only hope is deliberative voters. The only way for voters to empower themselves is for them to vote an oil major out of existence, but that will not happen until you stop proposing pie in the sky alternatives.
"which we embrace, by the way" is ambiguous. I certainly do not embrace allowing corporations to scale up random technologies. Individual hobbyists are harmless. Harm only happens after corporations get their hands on innovations discarded by scientific experiments. Not all businesses are bad, but only voters, not workers or consumers, can decide which companies do more harm than good. Repeat after me; delicense an oil major.
"that is something we are supposed to let the market decide" is ambiguous. Corporations are brainless; they don't decide anything; they just grow and survive; their business models are random. Sometimes it's only after they have scaled something up that it becomes obvious how much more harm than good they do. If you can't admit oil companies were a mistake, then we are doomed. Simply delicense an oil major, and let the markets replace them with companies not necessarily in the same industry.
"we only get marginal changes" is ambiguous. Postgrowth is marginal. Destroying an oil major would accelerate all the marginal changes you have thought of, but it would also cause changes you have not thought of. We know all the changes caused by one fewer oil company would be good, because oil companies are bad.
"we have to address economic uncertainty" is ambiguous. Propping up the economy is business as usual. We won't get safety nets until they are needed by former employees of an oil company we destroy.
@@marsaeolus9248 "No, absolutely not... Overpopulation is not a problem, ~80% of CO2 emissions come from Europe, USA and China..." Yes, wealthy countries cause most of the ecological harms, but a larger human population is a threat multiplier for climate disruption, water shortages, resources shortages, loss of biodiversity, and ecosystem destruction. Even in "developing" countries, precious forests get chopped down for firewood, species get driven to extinction, etc. The Earth simply can't support 8 billion of us long term and be as healthy as we need it to be. We can squeeze through the population bottle neck and avert ecological collapse if everyone adopts the simpler lifestyles of people in poorer countries, but then we desperately need the population to steadily and humanely shrink down to about 1-2 billion.
According to Jason Hickel, both ideas are correct! Hickel discusses overpopulation in his 2020 book Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World- "The richest 10% of the world’s population are responsible for more than half of the world’s total carbon emissions since 1990....." And also: "It’s essential that we stabilise the size of the human population.... What brings a nation’s birth rate down? Investing in child health, so that parents can be confident their children will survive; investing in women’s health and reproductive rights, so that women have greater control over their own bodies and family size; investing in girls’ education to expand their choices and opportunities; and ensuring economic security for all."
What part of the discussion though? The world consumed 3000 calories per person last year while people starve and record amounts of obesity, so we don't have a supply issue we have a distribution one. The lawn is the world's largest irrigated crop, that we maintain to look nice, 20% of our energy is electricity, add 5% for the people who grow our food, another 5% for food transport and emergency/medical, round up another 10% and we could lower emissions 60% overnight is we just stayed home. We could rotate workers through only jobs that are needed, ignore all current debt, supply the world an equal share of food, shelter, medical care, and raise general wellbeing while solving global warming.....all it would take is belief and choice, but over population when we are barely doing anything right isn't the issue imo. * To be fair you're going to see it anyway, you're living it now, between 1959 and 1999 the world had 100% growth, between 99 and 2039 it's supposed to be 50% and after that even less. 23 countries are going to see 50% loss of population due to old age, China is going to lose 600 millionish, Japan another 50 million. In a world of growth based economy, 50% less customers mean something, 20% even more, when it goes backwards,,,we have never experience what is coming in our lives.
If you propose this under the precondition of global social justice: YES. If you propose this to perpetuate overconsumption of the Global North: NO WAY!
This makes if sufficiently clear that those who emit sh*t tons of CO2 and have enjoyed all the fruits of infinite growth, can only embrace all the degrowth they wish. The rest of the people, a vast majority, who have no scope nor growth, will have to stand and watch. What Hickle proposes, is part impossible, part bogus, when we speak to people in the Global South.
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
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi everyone watching and reading this, note that on grassroots level we created the Degrowth Collective, an international organization, where we attempt to create a global network of grassroots groups that can push degrowth into the Overton window, work with labor unions to advance their demands aligned with degrowth, and aim at pushing political power towards degrowth. Spread the word about us, and join us as members!
How can I join? Thanks Gary
Interesting discussion, and to me, it is very obvious that post-growth is the path we should take. However, we should also consider the influence of finance. Our entire monetary system is based on debt. And debt is a huge problem for post-growth. Why? Debt only makes sense if growth is expected. Similarly, stock holders expect growth. Everything in finance is based on the expectation of growth, and is therefore incompatible with post-growth. So while I applaud most of the suggestions, I'm afraid it will all fail if we keep ignoring the elephant in the room. We need an alternative monetary system if we want post-growth.
That is the general thesis of the book I'm currently writing. It also tries to provide more sustainable, egalitarian solutions.
I'd love to hear the details: I'm writing a book about the scale of the societal transformation needed, and couldn't quite figure out what happens with finance and the monetary system.
@@karlwheatley1244 Money system is broken, bitcoin is not solution. th-cam.com/video/soGXgiGoMRU/w-d-xo.html
@@karlwheatley1244 all debt will need to be erased as a new system of resources + labour + technology + exchange/ distribution takes over. It's a crucial aspect to cover in detail, even the idea of insurance needs to be discussed.
The current monetary system ponzi-scheme was fraudulent from the outset and must be "rationalized"
The quantitatively-eased systematic-currency-degradation negative-sum-game is an illegitimate predatory-parasitic exploitation and extraction mechanism and must be unwound.
Thanks for the great episode! It's encouraging to see this kind of research funded, I'm looking forward to the results.
Great to read! Looking very much forward as well for the results!
Such an enriching podcast - thank you!!!
Great conversation, thanks!
As interesting and necessary laying of theoretical foundations is, I am always very interested in practical everyday concepts of living. As one example 15 sqm of living space pp. under middle European climate conditions provisioning a minimum room temp. of 20 deg C. was proposed by Julia.
I personally find it important that researchers either partially or continuously try to live under these proposed conditions themselves. Niko Paech, publishing on Post-Growth in Germany, always impressed and convinced me by living up to the standards he developed in his research.
Approaching Kant’s 300th birthday this also appears to be sort of a question of Categorical Imperative to me.
Merci pour ce bel épisode! Est-il possible de voir la liste des recommandations mentionnées à la fin, en particulier le podcast de Jacobin mag (je crois?) de Giorgos et la liste des projets dont parlait Julia? 🙏
What an episode! Great work.
Soft spot for G Kallis!!
100% But very biased as well :) (Julia and Jason are absolute legends as well though)
@@MetabolismofCitiesindeed they are brilliant!
I’m an economics PhD student receiving the “indoctrination” mentioned at 22:25 as I type this lol I agree the utility/profit maximization paradigm is fundamental to econ and it’s hard to look beyond it. Still, environmental econ grapples with the themes posed here although there ain’t much about degrowth as far as I know
Social controls, rationing and confiscatory taxation.
Brilliant!!
Oh come on Jason Hickel its more than a double crisis its a polycrisis.
Oh come on Julia you are smart enough to see the obvious. Bend or break? Growth will end. Consumption is decoupled from social outcomes only when the basics for survival food, water, sanitation, housing, education and health are accounted for.
Bend or break ?
Oh come on Aristide Athanassiadis you dont use a linear calculation to define urban residential footprints, Thats what Geographical Information Systems are for, accounting for all sorts of urban constraints, natural and built features and thresholds.
You are talking about a movement and it needs to be called a movement. Why? Because you are going to need simple outside the boundaries of the monetary system. I know this for sure, I like the sound of it. Let's create some attention!
"the necessity of degrowth" is ambiguous. I know JuliaSteinberger has research demonstrating it is possible, but necessary is different. Stopping climate from getting worse is necessary. Both for political and practical reasons, the simplest way to stop climate from getting worse is the only way that will work. Delicense an oil major. Fortunately for most, unfortunately for those that cannot make that demand because of repressed emotions, that changes everything. But putting "change everything" before "destroy an oil company" is putting the cart before the horse.
"optimizing system" is ambiguous. I'm even more skeptical of value and demand than you, because I only had econ101 indoctrination before reading DoughnutEconomics; in contrast y'all got economic degrees before reading DoughnutEconomics. Perhaps that's why I'm also skeptical about ownership. You think changing ownership will change what workers do? Workers are habitual, and consumers are impulsive; there is no hope there. The only hope is deliberative voters. The only way for voters to empower themselves is for them to vote an oil major out of existence, but that will not happen until you stop proposing pie in the sky alternatives.
"which we embrace, by the way" is ambiguous. I certainly do not embrace allowing corporations to scale up random technologies. Individual hobbyists are harmless. Harm only happens after corporations get their hands on innovations discarded by scientific experiments. Not all businesses are bad, but only voters, not workers or consumers, can decide which companies do more harm than good. Repeat after me; delicense an oil major.
"that is something we are supposed to let the market decide" is ambiguous. Corporations are brainless; they don't decide anything; they just grow and survive; their business models are random. Sometimes it's only after they have scaled something up that it becomes obvious how much more harm than good they do. If you can't admit oil companies were a mistake, then we are doomed. Simply delicense an oil major, and let the markets replace them with companies not necessarily in the same industry.
"we only get marginal changes" is ambiguous. Postgrowth is marginal. Destroying an oil major would accelerate all the marginal changes you have thought of, but it would also cause changes you have not thought of. We know all the changes caused by one fewer oil company would be good, because oil companies are bad.
"we have to address economic uncertainty" is ambiguous. Propping up the economy is business as usual. We won't get safety nets until they are needed by former employees of an oil company we destroy.
OVER POPULATION needs to be part of the discussion.
No, absolutely not... Overpopulation is not a problem, ~80% of CO2 emissions come from Europe, USA and China...
@@marsaeolus9248 "No, absolutely not... Overpopulation is not a problem, ~80% of CO2 emissions come from Europe, USA and China..." Yes, wealthy countries cause most of the ecological harms, but a larger human population is a threat multiplier for climate disruption, water shortages, resources shortages, loss of biodiversity, and ecosystem destruction. Even in "developing" countries, precious forests get chopped down for firewood, species get driven to extinction, etc. The Earth simply can't support 8 billion of us long term and be as healthy as we need it to be. We can squeeze through the population bottle neck and avert ecological collapse if everyone adopts the simpler lifestyles of people in poorer countries, but then we desperately need the population to steadily and humanely shrink down to about 1-2 billion.
According to Jason Hickel, both ideas are correct! Hickel discusses overpopulation in his 2020 book Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World-
"The richest 10% of the world’s population are responsible for more than half of the world’s total carbon emissions since 1990....."
And also:
"It’s essential that we stabilise the size of the human population.... What brings a nation’s birth rate down? Investing in child health, so that parents can be confident their children will survive; investing in women’s health and reproductive rights, so that women have greater control over their own bodies and family size; investing in girls’ education to expand their choices and opportunities; and ensuring economic security for all."
What part of the discussion though?
The world consumed 3000 calories per person last year while people starve and record amounts of obesity, so we don't have a supply issue we have a distribution one.
The lawn is the world's largest irrigated crop, that we maintain to look nice, 20% of our energy is electricity, add 5% for the people who grow our food, another 5% for food transport and emergency/medical, round up another 10% and we could lower emissions 60% overnight is we just stayed home.
We could rotate workers through only jobs that are needed, ignore all current debt, supply the world an equal share of food, shelter, medical care, and raise general wellbeing while solving global warming.....all it would take is belief and choice, but over population when we are barely doing anything right isn't the issue imo.
* To be fair you're going to see it anyway, you're living it now, between 1959 and 1999 the world had 100% growth, between 99 and 2039 it's supposed to be 50% and after that even less. 23 countries are going to see 50% loss of population due to old age, China is going to lose 600 millionish, Japan another 50 million. In a world of growth based economy, 50% less customers mean something, 20% even more, when it goes backwards,,,we have never experience what is coming in our lives.
If you propose this under the precondition of global social justice: YES.
If you propose this to perpetuate overconsumption of the Global North: NO WAY!
This makes if sufficiently clear that those who emit sh*t tons of CO2 and have enjoyed all the fruits of infinite growth, can only embrace all the degrowth they wish.
The rest of the people, a vast majority, who have no scope nor growth, will have to stand and watch. What Hickle proposes, is part impossible, part bogus, when we speak to people in the Global South.
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