New Economies: How Degrowth Will Save the World with Jason Hickel

[@davidgordon1981]

A humanist economics? Great idea, I’m in. The question is how do we deal with the sociopaths who own, control and ultimately benefit from the system that they have created for themselves. They are not going to just agree to this happily because it means the survival of life on this planet. The only life that means anything to them is their own.

[@eymerich9237]

We do that by building an ecosocialist revolutionary party

[@asdfsnfw3u4348]

@@eymerich9237200% correct and what is taught to aspiring environmental professionals in universities who learn the technical skill set. Allow me to share a copy paste thing for this kind of thing when I read it. “Friendly reminder NDAA 2011 took away constitution due process and specifically inked in that you may be black bagged and/or unalived for premises of national security, which includes disrupting our economy while the institutional baseline is infinite economic growth which is understood by the academic consensus as inherently contributing to ecological overshoot beyond carrying capacity, while exposing complicit corporations is constitutes as ecoterrorism according to the FBI, according to Rise Against’s EP The Ecoterrorist In Me. If you aren’t running for Democratic Party public office, literally “Paint the Democratic Party Green” and register Green so you can still vote Democrat but federal are forced to register you as legally Peaceful, Nonviolent, and understanding these concepts. Literally no excuse for doing better and 75 million plus Greens swarming around Democratic Party that gets more institutional media coverage than the Greens. Good luck.”

[@robbwebb5137]

I find it so infuriating that the UK government is now talking about sustainable growth??! Sustainable growth! What a joke.

[@urbanistgod]

@@andrewzcolvin And overpopulation

[@nightoftheworld]

@@andrewzcolvin ​ we should break down exactly what that “western growth” problem is-roughly 50% of emissions in US are from top 10%? There is clearly a class dimension inherent to the generalization.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@andrewzcolvin I'm addicted to peace and prosperity. I wish I could be poor and starving.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@nightoftheworld Yet, we don't want to talk about how the population boom was created in third world countries beginning in the 70s. The west was preaching depopulation at the same time purposely creating a mass of poor people.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@urbanistgod Britain could hold a billion people.

[@henrychoy2764]

what do you suggest we do about the asteroid ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

Degrowth for the billionaires, growth for the billions.

[@markbabson6997]

Jason, thanks for this clear exposition. It's extremely valuable! Try to stop saying, Right? all the time. It undermines your argument

[@jackbamboozle7246]

So would this new economy be built on the production of goods and services as commodities or not?

[@catherineslevin83]

That’s what I was going to ask.

[@NS-pj8dr]

I think partially but not entirely. I think basic needs would not be treated as commodities and would be provided either publicly or by a commons network. It does not ban markets, so other things like toasters could still be produced by businesses, as far as i understand.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@catherineslevin83 It doesn't matter. Die or figure it out. This crisis was completely accidental just like the covid lab leak in wuhan.. JAAJJAJAJAJAJ

[@bookerbooker6317]

would UBI be part of a degrowth future? & how will this be implemented? It doesn't seem in the interest of the state or big corporations to support this.

[@Distortion0]

No social change is going to happen without organizing the workers.

[@AtheistEve]

UBI and “new deals” could be the only way that big business and authoritarian states can keep people in check in the near future. It would be a form of lulling everyone into a sense of security so that they go back to sleep, as it were.

[@shanecollins12]

I think UBI is key as a mattress to get people through a painful transition away from fossil fuels and rampant resources use into renewables and a steady state economy.. It will take the stress out of peoples lives knowing there is a basic income every month. It's going to be a pretty hairy few decades and the least we can do is share the commonwealth with the people.

[@Achrononmaster]

@@shanecollins12 That would be highly regressive. Who produces the real goods people getting a UBI hand-out need? Other workers in the global south is the answer. Otherwise it is all an add to demand for zero supply, so purely inflationary, and watch the rentiers suck up all your UBI. If they know you are getting it, they'll take it. So UBI is no mattress, it's a Trojan Horse full of rentiers and capitalists. Production needs instead to be brought back home, and the way to do that is expanding public service jobs ad an unconditional offer of public purpose work to anyone who wants to work --- a Job Guarantee scheme. For people who cannot or should not be working then a Basic Income Guarantee is in order, it's what a civilized society would do. Never a UBI. Rentiers do not need a hand-out.

[@matthewcross2991]

Of course this is not in the interests of corporations. However, the idea of sustainable growth is inherently an oxymoron. For degrowth to be possible it requires the organisation of workers and underprivileged people to gain more control over the means of production. I really recommend JohnTheDuncan’s video on green growth as well as Andrewism’s video on degrowth. To quote Andrewism loosely, “growth for growths sake is a cancerous logic”. For this to be implemented we necessarily have to begin to theorise how we can move past capitalism. One incredibly haunting proposition is the rise of a Climate Leviathan. This idea was created by Geoff Mann and Joel Wainwright and it details how without addressing the logic of capitalism and subsequently green growth, we will slide into a world where democracy has faltered, leading to a state which controls and divides populations. It is not necessarily a question of theorising how corporations will exist under degrowth but a drastic change to the organisation of our economies to avoid ecological disaster and the collapse of democracy.

[@oluwasegunaina3092]

I think work is necessary to drive income for essential services Mr. Hickel. Otherwise, aided redundancy will lead to increased health problems or strengthen them.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

Work yes. Capitalist accumulation, no.

[@robertturner4225]

would people still be able to choose where they live and work?

[@abelreyna8781]

Who decides what is necessary and what will be produced? Also, what do we do with people that refuse to work?

[@Distortion0]

If we get organized, it will decided democratically. If we don't, it will be decided by the same people that manufactured the crisis.

[@AtheistEve]

We find out why they “refuse” to work. Maybe they can contribute in other ways.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@AtheistEve LOL

[@AtheistEve]

@@tuckerbugeater See. I’m barely working but I’m contributing to your happiness. 😁

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Comrade Stalin had an answer to both those questions.

[@No1WillMakeItOutAlive]

I agree this would be dope, but how is it going to happen? I can’t see the capitalist class just willfully giving up consumerism

[@hearmeout9424]

if they dont do that ,they we all we become mere spectators of the total destruction of this world ... more viruses like covid19 ,we all know it is a zoologic virus... more lockdown and more destructions ,more war ,more conflicts ,more deaths .Can you see the scenario??

[@seanandernacht800]

I'd recommend reading Murray Bookchin's 'The Next Revolution' or 'Ecology of Freedom' for a pathway

[@No1WillMakeItOutAlive]

@@seanandernacht800 I probably should, I’ve heard a lot ab bookchin

[@upstreamrose1536]

A great summary of the problems created by the capitalist view of economic development. Social indicators for human well-being over GDP. Thanks for sharing.

[@JaseboMonkeyRex]

I watched a great debate between green growth advocate and Jason here the advocate for degrowth.... The main criticism of the green growth proponents was how impossible this degrowth concept will be too sell .... Not attacking the arguments, because anyone who spends the time will see the foundational cause of the variety of ecological and social breakdown we're seeing is in fact being caused by exponential economic expansion.... But i agree with the green growth critics in only one fact, degrowth, even though extremely logical and clearly the only way we can achieve any success in dealing with climate change and the myriad of other ecological crisises, will be resisted to the death of civilization. No one will choose this path willingly.... Only when break down actually begins will there be a slim opportunity to shift the trajectory... And then only a few will change. Instead of the human population by 2100 being 8 or 9 billion, i suspect it'll be closer to 500 million ....

[@terryzeal3663]

Your claims do not hold universally, especially beyond the west, so be careful when you try and speak for the “human population” . The ideas behind the word ‘degrowth’ has been practiced by people around the globe for thousands of years. Besides, your argument is disproven by the fact that many (in the West) are choosing the path of degrowth willingly and with urgency. What it seems you’re actually trying to argue, is that capitalists will never accept degrowth because it would mean the end of capitalism.

[@annahwangcolligan2509]

I just don't see how all the people working in those sectors of the economy that are deemed unnecessary to human well-being (and who gets to decide?) would all just smoothly transition to working happily part-time in the approved sectors. It would be quite a painful transition, people and industry leaders would fight it, and many would be left behind, becoming a de-stabilising force in society. Degrowth may be necessary but don't sugarcoat it. I think a "steady state economy" is an easier sell.

[@olismith1797]

they could work part-time with their income supplemented by UBI - i'm sure they would be more than happy to do this. or they could work full time in socially useful industries; why would they need to work part-time there? bullshit jobs (David graeber) exposed how many of us are unhappy with our pointless jobs that serve no social good. for sure, it would be a big transition, but i'm sure that people either getting to focus on creative or socially beneficial pursuits would be quickly very supportive of the transitioning economy. if we had most working people focusing on socially beneficial things society would rapidly improve. i couldn't think of anything better...

[@GuestHouse-q3g]

Anything is possible if you believe

[@zacharyb2723]

Because income depends on waste - its a mind trick that prevents us from realizing that less bullshit jobs = less materials, labor and energy wasted = cheaper energy and materials for things we still need to do and shorter workdays. and your purchasing power should be fine if energy and materials are cheaper right?? Win-win when you cut waste! The labor market is fundamentally broken and, crazy as it sounds, income shouldn't depend on the market.

[@mat86100]

You're right that it wouldn't be easy, but let's also not melodramatise it. Changes in sector employment happen all the time, as one industry shrinks and another grows. It's a mainstay of a capitalist economy. Horses to cars, goods to services, DVD to digital, you name it. Jobs were lost and jobs were created. Some people would have a harder time retraining, sure, as they always do, and support should be provided, as it sometimes is, but many workers are able to transition, especially given time to retrain and no overall loss in wellbeing.

[@boathemian7694]

So I heard we need to limit our resource consumption to 1/5 of our current rate to be close to sustainable. Has anyone else heard such calculations?

[@1troyjoy]

Yes, if you're in US, that is the number I've heard. Which is a lot, so a lower birth rate is important, which is already happening, as long as the growth pushers don't get their way.

[@motogee3796]

Makes a lot of sense. Making life easier to live is one way to do it as he said ...Imagine if the basic needs are easily and cheaply met and ppl do not have to flock to cities for them. I believe many would choose a more relaxed simplistic life style instead of a competitive one. Ofc the means of making a living must become more easier as well.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

Degrowth air travel

[@ronachadwick7908]

I agree

[@coolioso808]

Makes so much sense, it is already being started by cooperative people in various communities using shared strategies, including One Small Town Contributionism. Voluntary and free to join, but just requires 3 hours to contribute per week, and we start creating abundance and prosperity of everything we need: Food, water, shelter, energy, healthcare, education, etc. and we co-own it and co-benefit from the fruits of our labour. You know, like the word "unity" in "community" is supposed to be!

[@vassilikizivala8025]

Back in 2008 in my MBA research paper I introduced a new measure of wealth which I called TIME GAIN which was the time for future economic and social life spared after having introduced basic ecological rules like 1 child per woman and peacuful human population number decrease, recycle, reuse, share, and repair all goods, no immigration, and travel only using cargo ships and trains. TIME GAIN was the number of future years that corresponded to a reduced and declining consumption of renewable and non renewable resources. I still believe that this is a good suggestion for our green future economy. Thank you

[@WhatCanSmith]

fuck that noise, Jack. We got quantum technology and we're going to evolve beyond your quasi-NWO trash ideas.

[@romanjanssen4833]

Thank goodness we didn't listen to an MBA and introduce a one-child policy.

[@rinnin]

@@romanjanssen4833 Why?

[@ytvc6039]

​@@rinninjust google what the 1 child policy did to China and why they stopped it.

[@Loeviis]

@@ytvc6039Don’t forget China murdered a bunch of girls bc ‘boys were better’ . That was a big part of its failure.

[@ernststravoblofeld]

So, how do you force rich people to stop doing this?

[@ashleyma2965]

maybe start a movement in the working class where we refuse to cooperate by working?

[@ernststravoblofeld]

@@ashleyma2965 Already tried it. Limited success.

[@ashleyma2965]

@@ernststravoblofeld what did you try? I think the key to this is the masses

[@ernststravoblofeld]

@@ashleyma2965 Every union throughout all history.

[@BRRBNK]

@@ernststravoblofeld well it was working pretty well until they moved all the production to the other side of the world

[@CarloBiondi]

It's human nature to grow. The problem with degrowth is that workers and the poor have to sacrifice while the elite travel around in their yachts and private jets.

[@1troyjoy]

Not true…what you say is determined by the system in place, not degrowth. Human births per woman have decreased drastically in the last several decades…so human nature growth rate is naturally slowing down…which we need to celebrate and not try to reverse as some are doing.

[@CarloBiondi]

@@1troyjoy people are having fewer children because it has become unaffordable. There's no support for families and housing costs are only going up. If families were encouraged to have more children with systemic support for families, then I am convinced the birth rate would go up, as it should. The entire global population can fit into the state of Texas with room to spare. I'm not saying that we all live comfortably in such a space and density, but it illustrates how much land hasn't been inhabited. This idea that a growing population is primarily responsible for climate change is false. Most people, about half the world population, live in extreme poverty and their carbon footprint is insignificant. The largest polluter is the US military, yet you never hear Greta Thunberg call out the 1000 military bases around the globe. Seems to me that the establishment is placing all the blame of climate change on the individual, while neglecting the institutions primarily responsible for global warming. I dislike these double standards.

[@1troyjoy]

@@CarloBiondi No one likes double standards. I don't think Greta or anyone else speaking on the issue is trying to exclude the military from the issue. Yes, the footprint of those in poverty is insignificant, but poverty is on the decline worldwide which contributes more footprint. Studies actually show that as countries become wealthier and more educated, fertility rates go down. The issue with overpopulation is not about having enough space to reside, but using resources and creating waste/pollution faster than the earth can deal with sustainably, which contributes to more social tension, warfare, etc.

[@CarloBiondi]

@@1troyjoy so decreasing poverty is a bad thing? Having more children is immoral? I don't understand your points. It seems to me that you'd be happy if people stopped having kids and the poor remain poor. It's human nature for us to want to improve our various societies. I want my 7 year old daughter to have a safe, secure, and happy life. If she earns more than I and decides to better herself, then that would be normal. Stating that decreasing poverty is bad, to me seems counter to human experience. I wouldn't want in a world that tries to limit growth. More growth the better. Finally, space is important since much of the earth hasn't been developed. There is plenty to go around for everyone,

[@1troyjoy]

@@CarloBiondiDecreasing poverty is good - doing so just expands the need for a lower population. I want your daughter to have a safe, secure, and happy life as well and many generations to come - the only way that we're going to be able to do that is to live within the carrying capacity of the earth.

[@GeoffV-k1h]

When JH explains what we don't need, he always mention s the same things = SUVs. private jets, yachts etc. This implies the revolution he puts forward would not affect anyone except a small number of super-wealthy people. Yet JH knows full well that few people are employed in making of these products which make up a tiny fraction of global manufacturing capacity. Removing them from production would do little to alter our current global economy or reduce emissions. Hs real agenda is much wider, but he is reluctant to espouse it.

[@kaylala4695]

does communism scare u

[@theappleboom5391]

I'm sorry, but as much as I am a leftist and sympathetic to these ideas, you are factually wrong on an important point. Imperialism relies on infinite growth as much as Capitalism does. In fact, I think it's best to think of Capitalism to be an adaptation of Imperialism to the modern world, and as such, we can look to Imperial collapses of the past to see what could be in store for our future.

[@TheRandomlyMeShow]

Excellent point! I mean there is a reason that America is jokingly known as the imperial core, and it is because of this exact reason. Capitalism is absolutely an extension or a different form of imperialism/colonialism.

[@sadiemakesmesmile]

it doesnt have to be the same. we dont have to relive history. We can rewrite it.

[@CJ4Africa]

There is a real need to look at how the inherent instability of concentrating resources needed by all in a few hands, the common coin of systems of domination, drives them to expand - its older than 'capitalism,' yes.

[@eliasaceves9506]

imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. why are u talking about imperialism like it’s somehow separate from capitalism and it’s expansionary tendencies

[@nickwatson8557]

Sweet, my retirement plan has changed from dying in a cruddy retirement home to death by starvation.

[@moosehand8721]

Careful, history repeats itself. Just sayin.

[@ctmhcoloradotreasureminehu8385]

@14:54 "De-commoditize the parts of the economy that are necessary for human need" Food, water and shelter are the basic human needs, you mentioned none of them. I am just a farmer but I'm about twice your age and have spent most of my life working long hard hours to produce food, a real human need. It makes me feel good about myself! What basic human needs have you worked hard to provide to society? Have you ever dug a well? Built a house? Planted a crop or raised an animal to eat? What makes you feel good about yourself? Can you see that from the point of view of a farmer, rancher, driller, miner or other person who actually works hard to produce something real for society YOU might appear as the problem?

[@tuckerbugeater]

This is no joke. This is a threat to our existence and we know what they're doing.

[@anthonymorris5084]

The Left should all work in marketing. They are truly geniuses when it comes to language manipulation.

[@GeoffV-k1h]

''That's what counts for human flourishing' JH. This is the presenter's opinion. He may be right, but seems to assume all would automatically agree with him.

[@mrbisse1]

Jason, you are, of course ,correct. But I think you, as with virtually all of us degrowers, suffers from the big blind spot. That's what I have begun to call it. I have been a degrower for about 50 years -- ever since the publication of the original "Limits to Growth", but I have for even longer been a decentralist as in "The Decentralist Manifesto" q.v. -- not quite the same as a "localist" or a "misurbanist". Put most bluntly, the cities as we know them have to be abandoned. Until degrowers accept that hard fact I see them coming up with no convincing solution. (The math to prove this lies in the unsolved "Wedge's Paradigm" q.v.) Furthermore, artists are going to have to make for the change in the paradigm. Scientists have done what they could. So what happens when the cities are abandoned? The populaiton decentralizes. It has happened again and again. That process does not have to be accomplished suddenly and in desperation, but it probably will be. The best that I can offer as a solution you can find, if you wish to, in the "Preface to Lyrical Pallets" at this link: docs.google.com/document/d/1cE-Ku9nqmidD-IfIXDmRgsJ6PAwZGR06/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=101791107739616719910&rtpof=true&sd=true How to get there? Here is my best offer on that score, though I did not complete it and turned my attention to writing a novel to show somewhat the same thing: docs.google.com/document/d/1WqI5Xe-pQS-bA_-cVOAaaRfAdaP5I0lq/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=101791107739616719910&rtpof=true&sd=true

[@pascalxus]

capitalism does not absolutely need growth. we can have slow continuous degrowth for long periods, as long as it's cleverly disguised with lots of inflation.

[@vebdaklu]

We don't have long periods, my friend. Also, capitalism is characterised by profit, and profit can only be achieved by growth. Therefore, no growth = no profit = no capitalism.

[@kinfolkcanine4281]

This dude is my new hero (thanks to Russell Brand for the hint)

[@kurtogaming]

Hi

[@kurtogaming]

Hi

[@larrybeckham6652]

How to get there from here without bloodshed? That is the problem i see.

[@celestialteapot309]

Blaming capitalism is not inimical to understanding population overshoot.

[@farinshore8900]

Degrowth might be helpful, but by itself it will not solve such a complex problem.

[@awen777]

Funny sitting here watching a well fed elite telling me how to fix the world. Poor working people could run circles around you. Show us your house. Show us your life style. How often do you jet around the world? How are you an example? How did Sri Lanka go?!

[@rogerclark3]

This is what you call a hard sell...

[@anthonymorris5084]

It's what I call absurd.

[@Jean-Luc-sh2pg]

"Right?" "Right?" No.

[@pedromora9927]

I am curious how this central planning will actually work. What are the incentives for people? What if people draw pleasure from working and growing a business? Are they forbidden to do it or they will have to do it for free? I'm guessing that private property is eliminated or at least heavily restricted. And regarding growth, what will happen to the global population? Economies grow because more value is being crated and populations grow. So in this de-growth strategy are populations supposed to die, reduce or at least stagnate? Meaning that the number of children are going to be restricted? I see this view as heavily oppressive to the individual (but it is my unfounded opinion) And still, Costa Rica by those metrics may seem a happy place, but why so many people flee to United States and not Costa Rica? And there is some subjectivity to happiness. People are living a more confortable and longer life now than 20, 50, 100, 500.. years ago. And I don't agree with that point of view that people were dragged to work at factories completely. I mean, in some cases yes, forced labor but in others were voluntary and now (excluding Yughur population and other marginal cases) it is voluntary. And still in the not voluntary case, slaves have been a part of humanity since forever, it wasn't made up by colonialism. The amazing thing is that we got rid of that, and in my view it is thanks to classic liberalism and capitalism. I would also argue that we live in a unprecedented peaceful time in our history, thanks to capitalism.

[@egath7010]

I don't know exactly what he is proposing, but I don't think it would be particularly restrictive. Human population is already projected to stagnate and I don't think any serious person wants to restrict people's ability to get children. Regarding businesses, I would guess that they maybe wouldn't exist in the exact form that they do today. That doesn't mean that the activities that is involved in the running of a business wouldn't be able to be exercised in other ways though. Migration rates aren't exactly the best metrics of a nation's wellbeing. For example, Niger and Slovakia have similar net migration rates, but they are wildly different countries. I don't agree with your notion that most work is voluntary. In some rich nations perhaps, but mostly not. For most people, no job equals no food on the table and no roof over your head. So how can you say no to work, when the alternive is a life in poverty and starvation? Another thing, slavery isn't even gone, there are millions of people currently in slavery. It is true that we live in a time where the world is better than what it was before, but that doesn't mean we need to be content with the status quo. We having made progress doesn't forbid us from envisioning a better future.

[@Musebandiscool]

What about clean energy and post scarcity? Those are also things. Degrowth seems more like what someone who doesn't want to lose control of information or power over demographics would want. We also need more intellectual and actionable agency for adult women and that can be achieved via capitalism. (Non boys club, non willfully malicious capitalism, which is champagne socialism and not true capitalism)

[@j-fpochon5116]

Only Women can save the world... but not alone !! (sorry it's better in french... "Seules les Femmes peuvent sauver le monde... mais pas seules !"

[@marsaeolus9248]

The question is, How do we stop capitalism!

[@muca3242]

cap

[@hobbabobba7912]

Is this the worst idea I've ever heard? I mean, not the worst, but probably top 5

[@giajapar]

Clear example of dogmatic 'thinking', rejecting scientific method.