Ah hes a degrowther, makes sense. I read through his paper and I really don’t think its realistic or thought provoking. It lacks humanity and applies a utilitarian solution. Its the same as saying we have x humans producing co2 lets reduce the number of humans but instead of humans its goods he deems to be unnecessary.
His entire premise is based on what he thinks a person needs to live a good life. But lifes just not that simple and people all around the world NEED different things this type of strict partitioning fails when applied to the entire world. Part of what makes our current system work is that its dynamic, people create goods they want and those who also want those goods buy them.
“It is important to understand that the DLS represents a minimum floor for decent living. It does not represent a an aspirational standard and certainly does not represent a ceiling. However, it is also a level of welfare not currently achieved by the vast majority of people. A new paper by Hoffman et al finds that 96.5 percent of people in low- and middle-income countries are deprived of at least one DLS dimension…we can conclude that 6.4 billion people, more than 80% of the world’s population, are deprived of DLS.”
The authors are not suggesting that everyone be forced on DLS at gunpoint. They are suggesting an absolute bare minimum standard that the overwhelming majority of people on Earth do not yet even have.
How the hell do you get from that to some sort of paranoid fantasy where everyone gets exactly the same thing?
Uh I disagree. The author is suggesting we could cut 70% of the worlds industry because he thinks that represents a good enough standard of living. If he was suggesting that everyone be brought up to the minimum standard then he wouldnt be suggesting large scale degrowth.
No, his argument is that the average human needs this standard. also, it is a model, it is by definition simplified.
Besides, what is the alternative? First world countries living like they own the place, third world countries starving, and we’re all getting killed in the climate war of 2040?
No, his argument is that the average human needs this standard. also, it is a model, it is by definition simplified.
His argument is the average hmuan needs this standard… so we can cut “unnecessary production” and it will be fine. I’m arguing that he cant label things unnecessary because hes found a standard wealth level he thinks is good enough. It wont work as an approach because humans require a diverse range of inputs to live happy lives and that requires a diverse and dynamic production economy.
Sounds like national chauvinism, the idea that Americans need more luxury goods than everyone else, and that there’s no way no how you’d ever lower your already completely “fair” level of consumption.
No americans need deep-fried double bacon tripple cheese whoppers each day, And they all need to live in Phoenix, Arizona and have a big beautiful lawn and run the AC 24/7
Ah hes a degrowther, makes sense. I read through his paper and I really don’t think its realistic or thought provoking. It lacks humanity and applies a utilitarian solution. Its the same as saying we have x humans producing co2 lets reduce the number of humans but instead of humans its goods he deems to be unnecessary.
His entire premise is based on what he thinks a person needs to live a good life. But lifes just not that simple and people all around the world NEED different things this type of strict partitioning fails when applied to the entire world. Part of what makes our current system work is that its dynamic, people create goods they want and those who also want those goods buy them.
What on Earth are you on about?
Quoting from the study:
The authors are not suggesting that everyone be forced on DLS at gunpoint. They are suggesting an absolute bare minimum standard that the overwhelming majority of people on Earth do not yet even have.
How the hell do you get from that to some sort of paranoid fantasy where everyone gets exactly the same thing?
Uh I disagree. The author is suggesting we could cut 70% of the worlds industry because he thinks that represents a good enough standard of living. If he was suggesting that everyone be brought up to the minimum standard then he wouldnt be suggesting large scale degrowth.
Which paper are you getting this from?
No, his argument is that the average human needs this standard. also, it is a model, it is by definition simplified.
Besides, what is the alternative? First world countries living like they own the place, third world countries starving, and we’re all getting killed in the climate war of 2040?
His argument is the average hmuan needs this standard… so we can cut “unnecessary production” and it will be fine. I’m arguing that he cant label things unnecessary because hes found a standard wealth level he thinks is good enough. It wont work as an approach because humans require a diverse range of inputs to live happy lives and that requires a diverse and dynamic production economy.
Sounds like national chauvinism, the idea that Americans need more luxury goods than everyone else, and that there’s no way no how you’d ever lower your already completely “fair” level of consumption.
No americans need deep-fried double bacon tripple cheese whoppers each day, And they all need to live in Phoenix, Arizona and have a big beautiful lawn and run the AC 24/7
You have to understand, people in Africa need clean drinking water, people in the USA need two cars and a lawn. Anything less would be inhumane /s