Exploring degrowth and sufficiency | T. Parrique | Keynote x ChangeNOW2023

Speaker(s):
Timothée Parrique, Researcher in ecological economics, University of LundModerated by: Laura Joffre, Multimedia Journalist, Pioneers Post
This conference was filmed during ChangeNOW, the largest event of solutions for the planet, in Paris from 25 to 27 May 2023 for its 6th edition. The three-day summit will bring together over 35,000 of the world’s leading policymakers, entrepreneurs, investors, companies, NGOs, and citizens to address pressing issues around climate, resources, biodiversity, and inclusion
Learn more at www.changenow.world

[@anakissedboyle3067]

For an obese Economy, a diet rather than an amputation leaves everyone happier, healthier. Not dying of lung cancer, for profits, but singing in the parks.

[@karlwheatley1244]

Well put.

[@alisongray1067]

Hey, it’s Borat!

[@spotuser-vn7vb]

The problem is not economic. It's government policy, specifically spending on things government has no business spending money on and now the bills are due. All the rest of the noise is a smoke screen: Capitalism is bad, America is so divided, Guns are the problem, and so on. So why is government the problem? Because they need more money to service our ever growing debt (standing well over 34T). Because of that they need more inflation and higher taxes than ever to cover the interest on existing debt. More tax grabs are coming and much more inflation. This cycle will continue until the government is held responsible for their reckless behavior. For most of the past 75 years government spending as a % of GDP has ranged between 40% and 60%. Then Obama showed up and spending went to 95-100+% during his tenure and since he left it's never been below 100% and is now in the 120-130% range. No administration (not even our congress people) have the political will to correct this behavior because it means stopping to pay for bailouts, entitlement programs, our voluminous and never ending proxy wars (sometimes even outright wars), our police state (HHS and TFA)...and the list goes on and on. Government needs to do what they were always instituted for and really not much more. That is education, infrastructure, border security, and protection from foreign invasions. Instead government has embedded itself into every single industry and knows how to do nothing but grow itself and grow its spending. If left unchecked, they will ruin this country. None of these issues has anything to do with capitalism, it's our elected (and more so our unelected) government officials acting like our money is theirs to do what they want with it.

[@karlwheatley1244]

"For most of the past 75 years government spending as a % of GDP has ranged between 40% and 60%. Then Obama showed up and spending went to 95-100+% during his tenure and since he left it's never been below 100% and is now in the 120-130% range. " That's totally false. Government spending as a percentage of GDP stands around 34% now and was not high during the Obama years. The Bush and Trump tax cuts drove up the deficit, as did excessive military spending and a misguided 22-year "war on terror."

[@bz-mz5hm]

You're half correct, half incorrect. Read The Deficit Myth to learn how much good our elected officials could do, if we did a better job of electing the right people.

[@thevulgarmarxist7619]

"A stunning example of how, beginning with a false premise, a relentless logician may wind up in bedlam"

[@karlwheatley1244]

What's the false premise?

[@thevulgarmarxist7619]

@@karlwheatley1244 Becouse GDP is not merely "Step step step", otherwise it would exert no pressure on economic systems. If you had ten people standing in a circle passing the same rock around in that circle, what pressure would there be on the environment? Ten thousand? Ten million? None, none, none. This clown begins with the basic assumptions necessary for green growth to be true, then realizes that green growth is false, but continues to hold the same assumptions. Second, out planet is continually receiving energy, its why greenhouse effect is a thing in the first place. So using energy is not, in point of fact, a problem, since until the sun burns out we have infinite energy. The problem is how we are translating that solar energy into usable form. Third, given the STAGGERING waste of the capitalist system there is no reason to think current production patterns will even remotely match production patterns in a more progressive economy. Half of all clothing is thrown out unsold, most large consumer items would last double, sometimes triple their current lifespan and could be fully recyclable. Packaging alone is insane, there is no reason we need to use anything besides cardboard, glass or aluminum, all of which are 100% recyclable. There is absolutely no reason why a reduction in production would have any meaningful effect on consumption when half of all products are being thrown out unused or have a fraction of their potential lifespan due to "Planned Obsolescence". This man is another joker peddling the idea that the workers must pay for the incompetence of the capitalists AGAIN! Fourth, the idea that this can be localized is INSANE. Anyone studying environmental issues should know what the hell negative externalizes are. It was not vermont or new hampshire who produced the sulfur dioxide that destroyed their maple trees, that was factories in ohio, indiana, and michigan. For environmental course correction to work it has to be top down, forced on those who benefit, and will continue to benefit, from dumping the consequences of their bad choices onto others. This is what i call "Feel Failing". Its like plastics recycling in the 1980s, any chemist knew that plastics could not be 100% recycled. But the plastics industry lied to the public to get them to feel like they where doing something when in fact what they where doing was totally ineffective and would never have worked.

[@Raelspark]

Nonsense. We need more growth and capitalism.

[@karlwheatley1244]

"Nonsense. We need more growth and capitalism.: The faster we grow the economy, the faster we destroy the Earth's ability to support life. Capitalism is a life-hostile and self-terminating economic system--it steadily destroys the ecosystems and societies it depends on.

[@XD226]

plot twist : doesnt work

[@jerricknaylor9686]

Imagine wasting your life on this

[@karlwheatley1244]

"Imagine wasting your life on this" ??? Imagine spending your life on how to save human and planetary life so we can have a decent future? Sounds worthwhile to me.

[@garetthewitt9976]

@@karlwheatley1244 he never gives solutions of how everything is paid for??? What jobs will there be?? People like stuff . This movement is a very tiny tiny portion of people .

[@karlwheatley1244]

@@garetthewitt9976 Thanks for your reply. "he never gives solutions of how everything is paid for???" There's only one way it can be paid for--raise taxes on the rich and corporations--and redistribute much of the wealth that has been siphoned away from everyone else for centuries. "People like stuff" Yeah, they do, but we'll have to pick having lots of stuff now but causing catastrophic collapse of ecosystems and society--OR voluntarily reducing our stuff and saving as many people and species as we can. "This movement is a very tiny tiny portion of people? Absolutely true because so few people--including a great many scientists--knows the big picture and thus has any idea of just how bad things really are. Either we shrink the economy and our lifestyles voluntarily or face a much worse collapse.

[@AnsgarJohn]

It seems the speaker has not read Tesla Master Plan Part 3.

[@kkob]

What you are missing, Dr. Parrique, is not taking these thoughts to their logical conclusion. Everyone is making the same mistake. Put another way, you are starting from an untenable premise: Degrowth = sustainable, which shows you did not start with the First Principles/First Order question, "What is regenerative?" You simply assume how much we consume is the key, but it is only half: We must also change how and what we consume. We can, for example, choose to eat only potatoes. We could feed the world and be within planetary boundaries in terms of mass of material consumed and being able to grow them sustainably. Problem? Such a single-item, monocropped food system would pretty much kill us all and the rest of the ecosystem. Therefore, the Steady State or Doughnut Economy is an insufficient answer to growth. Talk with me about Regenerative Governance, a truly new socio-economic-political paradigm.

[@coolioso808]

Why in the world would you think "degrowth" means it can't be regenerative or that we can only eat potatoes? Have you ever seen or read Jeremy Rifkins "Zero Marginal Cost Society" book? Or Jason Hickel's "Less is More"... or better yet, Peter Joseph's "The New Human Rights Movement?" The technical capacity for us to live in localized abundance in most regions of the world, producing most of what we need, in great variety, while being sustainable and regenerative but also 'degrowing' in the sense that it is moving away from capitalist infinite growth and globalization, is very possible. Maybe Parrique's plan on how to get there may not work, but the idea of degrowth is very important and critical so how do we get there is perhaps the more important topic of discussion. Okay, what is your suggestion with this "Regenerative Governance", how would that work?

[@kkob]

@@coolioso808 "Why in the world would you think "degrowth" means it can't be regenerative or that we can only eat potatoes? " You 100% did not understand what I wrote, My point was his take on degrowth was simplistic and inaccurate thus would lead to unsustainable solutions. You are chiding me because you didn't understand it clearly. We are on the same page. Read it again.

[@coolioso808]

@@kkob I think we are talking about the same thing, but maybe you felt I came off a little strong with my questioning of your statement. I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm asking for you to clarify your thoughts. I'm interested. What do you mean by "Regenerative Governance"? Of course, I agree, just 'degrowth' doesn't mean necessarily equal sustainable, it has to be regenerative as to the things we regularly consume like food, water, and certain raw materials. I just offered some additional resources that I thought you might gain from, like Peter Joseph's work. He did a whole talk about "Economic Calculation in a Natural Law Resource Based Economy" on TZMOfficialChannel and it was basically "regenerative degrowth system science governance" but he didn't phrase it that way, he just described our efficiency and abundance potential in a sustainable manner if we applied certain changes to our social system.

[@kkob]

@@coolioso808 Regenerative Governance is beyond Joseph. Joseph, as an academic, begins from where we are and tries to push it to being regenerative, but that can't work because the two systems are diametrically opposed. Regenerative Governance starts with, "What is regenerative?" and goes from there. The first point along the way is, "Are there any regenerative societies?" The answer is yes, but none of them are modern. So we look to those and cull from them the principles they function by, their characteristics, their patterns. Only then can we answer, "What is regenerative?" We take that and apply it to the modern world. That's Regenerative Governance. I never start from what others think; I begin with a First Order question, "What is...?", seeking First Principles.Only after that do you have the means to parse what any others have to say on the issue.

[@coolioso808]

@@kkob You are talking in circles, my friend. You keep saying "What is regenerative?" but you aren't answering it. Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you sum up 'what is regenerative?' in a paragraph or less? If you wish human society to turn to regenerative governance, I hope you have a clear transitional picture in you head of how that would happen, at least in general. Because you can't change the world overnight, there must be transition. How would the transition look at the beginning?