The Truth About "Degrowth"

🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
👕 MERCH - merch.whitefor...
😎 JOIN PROGRESSIVE VICTORY: progress.win/v...
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / vaush
👀 3rd Channel? - / @vaushvidya
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#politics #politicalnews #election

[@blarghblargh]

"McDonald's Is Not A Third Place" sounds like a successful fast fashion t-shirt

[@TastelessTrees]

I would wear the shit out of that shirt

[@lyftbu983]

Honestly, that thing would totally sell. Which kind of undermines its point if you think about it.

[@MagusMirificus]

Lotta layers of capitalist horror built into that comment. Well done.

[@Sebastian-ld4qg]

Degrowth Fast Fashion

[@marmadukesandwich]

Where I live it's totally a third place for teenagers.

[@harryjrose]

Degrowth is when de thing gets bigger

[@kainoa_written]

De pression

[@bakerbrown6]

De tarded

[@Gorgovoid173]

I degrowth in your mo-...

[@silviuvisan505]

Deez nuts

[@CanOfNoodles]

DEutsch growth

[@Nebekenazar]

TRAINS! We can have a better transportation system and use less energy at the same time.

[@Jartran72]

Works great in austria! We have long been leaders in trains and public transportation. Hope to see america catches up.

[@eugenesnow]

I can't wait for California high speed rail!

[@masterplusmargarita]

​@@eugenesnow The year 3000 when it finally gets rolled out is gonna be so hype

[@jeddgangman4502]

Is that better then what we have now

[@FuzzyImages]

At the cost of time, and for a lot of people that is a deal breaker. I personally love the train, but I’m retired and am never in a rush.

[@DavidVallner]

So annnoying that meat is now culturally-coded. Like I saw that tweet by a dude saying he's only going to eat beef because chicken and fish are "weak animals." The irony of picking a herd animal to absorb this transcendental essence from seems to have eluded him.

[@dawildbear]

The path to being a true alpha is guzzling wolf semen.

[@D9-THC]

He wants the lean beef patty physique

[@iamover9000yearsold]

Dude's so fragile he'd implode if he ate a bean

[@creaturedanaaaaa]

@@D9-THC can't blame him who doesn't

[@justcallmekai1554]

​@@dawildbearSigmas eat Bull Testicles (I hate the word but its funny saying it outloud)

[@oo-vivian]

i think a bigger priority should be to get my fucking leg hair to degrow what is this shit UPDATE: i have found. a mystery razor. i wanna use it but i wont UPDATE: its fucking RUSTED thank GOD i didn't use that oh my god

[@blarghblargh]

Hair, I think

[@GO-sz1nv]

@@oo-vivian but but extra texture:(

[@oo-vivian]

@@blarghblargh UNTRUE. its little worms sticking out of my legs

[@oo-vivian]

@@GO-sz1nv what ? DD: huh

[@GO-sz1nv]

@@oo-vivian the hut was a typo

[@t3essays]

Oh my, is this what fame feels like? Seriously tho, appreciate the positive feedback. We've got new videos on degrowth that's stuck in development hell (and our personal health hell), which will offer a broader perspective than just Hickel's book. It's a great starter, but def very light when it comes to ideas for solutions, or even diagnoses. Plus, the movement as a whole evolved a bit since it was written. (In a weird way, but still.)

[@Cheater_And_Liar]

I happy that my favorite philosophical channel isnt anti Vaush.

[@alexis_luna]

Hi! Love your videos! It was really good seeing this one covered by Vaush, we need more attention to degrowth and solarpunk movements, considering the existential danger of climate change. Best of wishes! ❤❤❤

[@maciejglinski6564]

polska gurom

[@ryanmahon1]

I think one of the biggest wastes is the 40 hr work week. Productivity doesn't increase and yet companies still mandate it

[@poulhenne]

Just like working from home is considered laziness. It is just a demonstration of power. (and a real estate thing, since everyone thinks offices are needed)

[@D9-THC]

​@@poulhennecar manufacturers, oil execs and chain restaurants also benefit from people commuting to an office, I'm sure

[@lobstertail]

I recommend this channel bigly! They're polish creators and they put a lot of work behind this project. This is an English version of their main polish channel. Good thing this gets more attention

[@justinokraski3796]

What’s the (original) Polish version of Vaush?

[@rowbot5555]

@justinokraski3796 the video voonch watches in this segment is from the english branch of the "living better" channel

[@DJDiskmachine]

@@justinokraski3796 Łąsz

[@stachu5049]

For real! Smart leftist channels are really rare in poland, they do a great job

[@DJDiskmachine]

@@justinokraski3796 łącz

[@LoveLearnShareGrow]

YES! I'm so happy to hear someone else say "Advertising should be illegal." I've been thinking about how vile advertising is for years now. "Illegal" might be a little too far, but it really needs to be severely limited.

[@bpdlr]

The irony of people who complain about the "ugliness" of solar or wind farms but they say nothing about billboards

[@elise3455]

Like chat said; not illegal, but highly curbed! At some level, businesses need to advertise. But, like with e.g., the number of tall towers allowed in a city, it should be restricted.

[@LoveLearnShareGrow]

@@bpdlr Ugly billboards EVERYWHERE is definitely part of the problem, but I'm even more concerned about the promotion of consumption without benefit. If you actually need a medication, then by all means go get that medication. But that recommendation should really come from a doctor. If you actually need a new car, then fine go buy a new car, but you don't need a new one every year, and you should NOT feel bad for having an older car. This is happening in literally every industry. Capitalism is stealing our lives and convincing us to chase things that absolutely don't matter!

[@spyfire242]

The only time I really welcome advertising is when I am already shopping.

[@dynamicworlds1]

We need a hypocratic oath for psychology. Misusing psychology to manipulate people to harmful ends should be seen as malpractice. I don't give 1 F about ads that just inform consumers about a product, but the amount of manipulative psychology that goes into "normal" ads is unconscionable. I don't know how to legislate it, but ethically-speaking learning enough about psychology should have to come with an oath to "do no harm" with the knowledge. Professional advertisers are ethically on the same level as homeopaths and faith healers and I hold them all in equal contempt.

[@RedShocktrooperRST]

"Where will people get their protein" Same place with less waste, that's where.

[@desocialistcat]

believe it or not but people dont need 20 cheap badly made shirts

[@MontyTheBuoyant]

I am poor and they are weak, unfortunately we actually do

[@haleyspence]

@@MontyTheBuoyant nah, I'm poor too and we definitely don't need 20 cheap and badly made shirts, that's the reality we're currently in because of big-business-bullshit, really we could use like, 10, maybe 15 depending on how our our lives are structured, nicely constructed and worthwhile shirts would be better.

[@MontyTheBuoyant]

@@haleyspence Nice constructed and worthwhile aren't sold at a price I can afford. I didn't mean literally 20

[@haleyspence]

@@MontyTheBuoyant no I know what you meant, I am very much in the same boat, my perspective hinges more in favor of pre-planning and patience and putting more thought into it than the current material conditions have as the default. Like I realized my walking boots were going to bite it by the end of the summer, thy were $20 two years ago and I can't repair them or function comfortably without them, but I realized this at th start of the summer, so I made sure to spend th summer checking thrift stores for them every time, and eventually I found a pair that worked as a replacement and were a higher quality and were only $5 , and if I hadn't I had time to plan and save and get a better pair of boots even if I had to get them new This is an area of our lives we can take control of and all it takes is patience and planning and an attitude towards curating more than anything

[@MontyTheBuoyant]

@@haleyspence Unfortunately your walking boots change nothing for others. I obviously understand being a savvy shopper and all but I feel its a terrible thing to do to say that all this requires is gumption and attitude as it frames this problem of poverty and deceit as a skill issue

[@redminute6605]

Vaush watching one of the best Polish channels for leftist thought (that I happened to watch since many years) feels like a universe clash that I never asked for but needed.

[@eedeneel]

"degrowth" is a scary term. But using less, consuming less, producing less. In no way has to equal living a less fulfilled life. I think it has to be pitched delicately as an idea. But fundamentally people in the west, particularly in America, consume too much. (And it isn't making them happier)

[@aguspuig6615]

yyyyep, it often sounds like controlled oposition tbh. When they could easily say what you said, or in short, be more efficient, degrowth type videos often expect you to literally go hungry or stop having a phone or shit like that

[@edwardbrown3721]

The word "Degrowth" is garbage for this reason, feels like something Shell or BP would come up with

[@meguca201]

It's wild how bad people are at framing these ideas. There's literally already an extremely influential model of ethics baked into the western "canon" which could easily be used to frontload the basic premises of degrowth without sounding like we're going to go full primitivist and wind back the clock on modern society. Aristotle already laid the bedrock of western ethical thought in his concept of the golden mean; it would be so easy to just frame the excesses of capitalism and consumer culture as imprudent, and in violation of the moderation that constitutes human excellence. That way people would feel like they're actually improving themselves by cutting back, instead of being "degrown".

[@curranfrank2854]

Yea, there's nothing wrong with promoting anti-consumerism or trying to live moderately rather than in excess, in fact it's definitely positive overall. But framing it as "Degrowth" is perhaps the stupidest way they could have put it

[@aoeuable]

I opt for "quality is a quality all to itself" as slogan.

[@hasan7275]

“where would we get protein without meat” - lab grown meat - soy and other legumes/beans - sea food - less meat

[@brianbriones2815]

Less meat is such a wonderful point I wish people would bring up more. If the average American knew how much meat gets thrown out in any given grocery store in the country, they’d realize that cutting back on meat wouldn’t affect their ability to eat whatever they wanted. Mass production makes things cheap, but it also creates an insane amount of waste

[@FishfaceTheDestroyer]

Mushrooms are also sicknasty. I've been shroompilled for decades and I'm 24

[@hasan7275]

@@FishfaceTheDestroyer love mushrooms. got this vegetarian ramen where the main ingredient was mushroom and i only got it bc my family is muslim and i would potentially be using our utensils and they’re very strict about if it gets into contact with pork and i gotta say i was very happy with my choice and will continue getting mushrooms often. i’ve always loved mushrooms but it’s often paired with meat. this was something else i recommend to everyone. mushroom soup hits hard

[@Khalkara]

Sea food is still meat tho?

[@MohammedAli-hl4mr]

@@Khalkaratrue but some stuff comes from non sentient life so sort of vegan

[@anarkitty0]

Degrowth of gdp could be good. A lot of gdp is unproductive but society is build to make number go up.

[@poulhenne]

We need something better than GDP as a measurement. But the financial sector will not allow that.

[@quartzofcourse]

Heat pumps and LEDs will save so much vs propane / butane heaters and lighting

[@Tacklepig]

Degrowth isnt about "lowering our quality of life" its about not growing like a cancer cell. you can maintain a steady quality without constant growth.

[@tombrown407]

We give everyone an improved standard of living and degrowth by redistributing wealth hoarded by parasitic billionaires.

[@kx7500]

@@tombrown407no shit. AND we have degrowth as well.

[@lucasleepwalker7543]

yeah, vaush can be an ok entertainer, but some of his takes (like this one) is idiotic

[@feihceht656]

​@@lucasleepwalker7543 I don't think it's idiotic at all, he agrees with the principles of degrowth, but the rhetoric terminally online people use to describe it makes achieving those goals an impossibility. You have to abandon being seen as the most correct and appropriate in order to actually make a difference in the world

[@CesarFerraro2]

@@feihceht656 Degrowth is stupid both as political rhetoric and as a philosophical principle, and it's easy to see that from the amount of nonsense people are spouting here. It's amazing how little leftists understand about economics. Building trains will lead to growth, not degrowth, this is true in the process of building them, but also later due to gains in agglomeration. Working fewer hours while earning the same wage is only possible if there is productivity growth, not degrowth. Any scientific advancement, whether in medicine, materials or whatever, will happen in the context of growth, not degrowth. And no, it is not possible to improve everyone's standard of living by redistributing wealth from billionaires, that doesn't even make sense. This misunderstands what wealth is and how anything works. For example, Elon Musk's wealth only exists on paper because he owns companies on paper, if the government were to confiscate such property, Musk's wealth would disappear, and therefore no one could be helped with it. Besides, real societal wealth is production, the ability to transform natural resources into material comforts, that is ultimately the real limitation on people's ability to consume.

[@CS-iq4xn]

The Great Simplification, Nate Hagens podcast is the best source of info on degrowth and related topics on KZbin imo. truly a mind blowing source of knowledge and expertise. I dont really know how to clearly define the idea of degrowth, but i dont think Vaush is giving it a very fair hearing here either. Like, fair point, its a political nonstarter given our current system. But degrowth is an indictment of the current system, so it feels like youre making our point for us. The difference between challenging the system from a degrowth stand point and say an anarchist or libertarian stand point, is degrowth is somewhat more material, less ideological critique, imo. At this point we have a pretty good grasp of what raw materials are available to the 8 billion ppl on this planet, the potential impacts of climate change, the impacts on ecosystems and agricultural production. And I think if you just look at the numbers, it starts to become clear that this project of infinite growth capitalism is not compatible with earth systems. its an existential equation. i have yet to find anyone in the "degrowth" sphere that has a comprehensive answer about what to do.. but i do think these are the most relevant questions to be asking about the coming century.

[@masterofthecontinuum]

An economic ststem predicated on an assumption of infinite growth can never work on a planet of finite resources. We should reconfigure our economy such that reaching the point of japan or south korea where population growth levels off isn't an economic death sentence. That should be the goal: a sustainable balance of human beings and a world of finite resources.

[@jacobmerrill693]

The mathusians have just been consistently wrong though. Like we can't sustain infinite people on finite resources but continually improvements in tech lowers the resource/person ratio and makes some growth infinitely sustainable. And Japan isn't sustainable nor is it leveled off growth- it has a *negative* growth rate and flipped their age pyramid. If the whole world was like Japan there wouldn't be enough people able to work left to support everyone with our current abilities.

[@masterofthecontinuum]

@jacobmerrill693 you're missing the point I think. I'm not saying people will starve. And oviously Japan has big problems. What I'm saying is that the trend for developed nations to plateau population growth as their needs begin to be met needs to be the desirable end goal as opposed to an abberration that needs to be supplemented by extracting population and resources from elsewhere. Capitalism doesn't function as more people have their needs met, otherwise it wouldn't be completely stunted by a natural end result of that. It needs to be replaced with something that actually conforms to the reality of our world. The population growth of other places in the world has to involve extracting resources far beyond its local sustainable rate, and then it is transferred to countries who have reached a leveling off point. The earth is a delicate ecosystem, and human beings are a plague upon it. I also think human beings can be pretty cool sometimes. So we need to reach a harmonious balance where doing things like mining rare metals from the earth and clearing diverse ecology for crop monocultures are reduced in necessity. Even something as simple as picking up little pebbles of metal off the ocean floor could be leading to total ecological destruction. 40 years after deep sea mining, regions are so dead not even bacteria live there, potentially due to chemical interactions with the metal nodules triggering electrolysis of water producing oxygen for the deep sea environment. We can't begin to comprehend how we are killing ourselves through the infinite number of ways we are exploiting our world. What I want is for humanity to reach an equilibrium at a point where we have both a modest use of the earth and its resources, without triggering total ecological catastrophe, and also sustain a comfortable standard of life for all humanity and maintain a total population size large enough to foster a maximization of ideas and invention. It would be nice if we could do that for at least a few thousand years or so, whatever the eta would be for the technology to trigger a post scarcity world to be developed. . It's like how nuclear fission is the best transitionary energy source until we can get fusion working. After that, little else matters. But we have to halt the runaway carbon emissions from destroying the planet in the meantime. Though I suppose it is necessity which breeds invention, and if we were to live sustainably, such technology would be unnecessary. But it's still worth a shot. I just want humanity to stop being a cancer on the earth, man.

[@aguspuig6615]

The chad: using trains, nuclear energy, more efficient policies, literally just ennacting the most efficient strategies we already know of. vs The virgin: im not gonna bring children into this world because we are the virus.

[@mothman8300]

I'm child free but not antinatalist. I'll ride trains for me and the future generations I just don't think they should come from my cursed bloodline.

[@RK-cj4oc]

​@@mothman8300 How edgy. Another parasite my childeren will have to support when you are in a old people home on the taxes of my kids.

[@KeVIn-pm7pu]

But the No children Part really is dumb.

[@tombrown407]

Antinataliats are stupid, buy they're a self solving problem.

[@hannayapelekai1628]

tbh I see no reason to make children as long as there are children who can be adopted. "But I want to continue my bloodline" ok Adolf Hitler.

[@Cheater_And_Liar]

I heard a lot about degrowth while studying philosophy and to my knowledge degrowth isn't about "sabotaging" our economy but about redefining our undenstanding of economy like Think That Through said. Degrowth wants to replace GDP with different ways of measurement which associate growth with improvement of human condition rather than simply reduce currently existing GDP. Degrowth is about "degrowth" only from perspective of current economics even tho the name doesn't make it clear at first glance.

[@D9-THC]

Unfortunate username pairing with such a based and true yet sadly controversial comment

[@CS-iq4xn]

yes, thank you. this is a much more charitable summary of what degrowth is really about

[@CS-iq4xn]

check out The Great Simplification if youre really looking to grapple with these ideas.. probably the biggest knowledge base on KZbin

[@CesarFerraro2]

This is silly and nonsensical. You can create any silly quality of life measure, but no one will pay attention to it. The fact is that people want to make more money, consume more stuff and live more comfortably, and yes, that means using more energy. Now, that energy can be clean, so you can have more energy use without more carbon emissions, but that is not degrowth.

[@mckenzie.latham91]

But it comes off as sabotaging the economy For example, if you try to lower the amount of beef, because beef is massively insufficient with water and feed etc. The cattle industry and beef industry will come after you, and they have far more friends and paid off whores in government then you do they make billions off of the cattle and beef they produce and sell...and regrowth i their field literally does mean they make less money or that their practices will need to be refined which will cost them money to actually not be run like crap

[@wfb.subtraktor311]

As an Envi Sci Bachelor and Sustainable Resource Management Master Vaush saying "degrowth bad", then describing something that is supposedly better and just turns out to actually be what degrowth is is incredibly funny to me

[@shyflyf3772]

the only problem with degrowth is the spooky name Vaush argues for a rebranding kinda like "super-capitalism"

[@DRourkey]

The idea that people need to be mentally on board with an idea for it to work isn't crazy. My dad tried to raise me to be a fighter and I became a pacifist because he demanded I be a fighter for stupid reasons. I simply refused. Now if someone goes and hits my friends, or some homeless person, or generally anyone weaker than them who can't or won't fight back, and I'll happily fight. Fighting is functionally the same activity regardless of the reason, but I won't do it just because someone wants me to.

[@TheViktorofgilead]

Vaush surprised me with his reasonable attitude towards degrowth and not just repeating the “bad optics” propaganda.

[@neilk.3398]

There are multiple studies that argue staying in our planetary boundaries is not possible with constant growth. Hence why we need Degrowth.

[@d-5037]

Someone in chat implying cutting beef would make it harder to get protein? Dude. It's the other way around. Beef is super inefficient way to make protein.

[@TheConnorian]

This is the problem with "degrowthers" they've given a name to switching to more efficient and sustainable economic activities that suggests loss of wealth. When in reality all such a thing would mean is growth in a better area. Which would, due to it's better efficiency and sustainability, mean improving quality of life.

[@TheAmericanAmerican]

*BEANS*

[@jaywalkallstar]

But it’s tasty. And that’s all that really matters here.

[@masterplusmargarita]

​@@TheConnorianThe left is just fucking terrible at giving our good ideas good names. "Defund the Police" sounds like we want to get rid of law enforcement, when it's really "Fund other, better ways of preventing and catching crimes". "Abolish whiteness" sounds like we want to get rid of all white people, when what we want is to break down the power structures excluding other types of people from power and privilege. "Abolish time" was a much, much smaller one, but it's my favourite because it makes it sound like we want to get rid of one of the four dimensions or something when the point is there's ways in how we perceive time and puctuality that are harmful and we should reexamine those. We always have good points and then package them into the most bananas-sounding slogans imaginable.

[@piccalillipit9211]

sorry dude - not al proteins are the same - plant protein utterly sucks and I love lentil soup, but it ain't chicken. That said you guys are probably in the US so chicken aint chicken - yo know its not supposed to be a giant watery slimy homogenous blob right; its supposed to be small and a bit stringy and needs to be chewed.

[@jonahbranch5625]

I disagree. Americans do want degrowth, they just don't call it that. 32 hour work week is degrowth. A livable wage is degrowth. One parent able to stay home to care for their children is degrowth. Working from home is degrowth. Owning your home is degrowth. Owning land is degrowth. Right to repair is degrowth. Public transit is degrowth. Socializing the medical industry is degrowth. A third place without spending money is degrowth. Making art instead of needing to make money is degrowth. Unionizing is degrowth. Birth control is degrowth. Americans don't really want endless growth, because we never see the benefits. Only the ruling class benefits. We have to pay more for groceries every year and work more hours every year regardless of what the stock market is doing

[@valdamirlebanon4508]

What does any of that have to do with degrowth? Half the things you mentioned would increase growth not reduce it.

[@jonahbranch5625]

@@valdamirlebanon4508 things that are bad for the gdp but good for human health

[@valdamirlebanon4508]

@@jonahbranch5625 Most of that isn't bad for GDP. 32 hour work week for example would be great for GDP, since it would promote increased consumption. Unions and a livable wage are good for a similar reason, if the average american has more money/time they reinvest it back into the economy, resulting in more growth then there otherwise would have been. A person who owns their own home will make more frequent and higher quality repairs then a landlord. Right to repair means more people can afford to own said product/won't put off easily ignored repairs. Public transit and walkability MASSIVELY increases the profitability small businesses who spend reinvest that money back into those communities. By the definitions you gave the only 1 of those that counts as degrowth is parents being guaranteed time off to spend with their kids, and even then the degrowth is an accidental byproduct of a completely unrelated goal.

[@TheConnorian]

​@@valdamirlebanon4508 They've ironically drunk the corporate koolaid that things that CEOs don't like are bad for the economy lol

[@valdamirlebanon4508]

@@TheConnorian I feel like it's not just him. So much of what degrowth apparently stands for would be good for economic growth, which means framing these objectives in terms of shrinking the economy is both unnecessary and counterproductive. Why would someone willingly accept such a politically toxic label when it's not even accurate.

[@coldspring22]

Vaush, are you aware that mankind has only limited amounts of resources of every kind including fossile fuels, raw resources and working ecology. What happened when these critical resources run low or entirely exhausted? How will you feed 10 billion people in a planet earth with wrecked ecology? Current human lifestyle can only be temporary as it relied on finite no renewable resources which are rapidly being depleted. Consequence of unrestrained exponential growth is always exponential collapse.

[@davekal06]

If we reclaimed all the land worldwide that is used to grow meat crops and the land that is used to grow food for these meet crops, we’d have a chunk of land the size of Africa! I eat meat everyday but I also see how inefficient and unnecessary it is.

[@Kwijibob]

We don't have a shortage of land though

[@salomaogomes7311]

​@@Kwijibob Go say that to the people who are homeless because they can't afford rent

[@aguspuig6615]

wait Africa is the size of the new world, its not physically possible, unless we are literally using all of africa, to have that much farmland, this sounds like a bs factoid

[@rowbot5555]

@aguspuig6615 maybe consider they was using "we" in the global sense, not just refering to the usa. Given the usa uses over half of its land for meat production of some kind, its not that insane

[@chandelier6811]

@@salomaogomes7311that’s not because of a shortage of land

[@curvingfyre6810]

It's wild to me that this term is still used, cause... Green energy requires growth. Public transport requires growth. Vegan options require growth. These are the 3 biggest pillars of climate change (even leaving aside shit like plastic waste), and all of them need HUGE investment and economic activity to put into place. If we care about the size of the economy more than about these things, we will never get them done. Regardless of whether we want that economy to be larger or smaller.

[@KeVIn-pm7pu]

Yes but Overall that would still be a degrowth of other parts of the Economy Like automanufacturerers, or the fast Fashion industry.

[@trollforlife]

It's for this reason that degrowth is a bit of a bait and switch. GDP numbers aren't the main thing. It's scaling down fossil fuels and meat.

[@curvingfyre6810]

@@KeVIn-pm7pu I mean... not really? The more we improve standards of living, the more we open up avenues for higher education, higher skill fields, etc. Also, if we're in the territory of "guarnteeing" anything at all, we're also in the territory of actual machine and learning program automation of menial jobs, without it being a social catastrophe.

[@btarczy5067]

It takes a lot to put new infrastructure into place but in terms of what we currently perceive as economic value it would definitely be degrowth in those sectors once the necessary subways and such are built, ideally to last.

[@TheConnorian]

​@@btarczy5067 When did having to spend less time/money on maintenance mean degrowth? It would literally free up labour for other things that improve quality of life. Which is growth.

[@gajxo]

American minimalist degrowth lifestyle is the rest of the world's luxury.

[@whiplash2891]

Last time i was this early my girlfriend didn't speak to me for a week straight

[@bobbyfartz5591]

The best way to say first

[@Jartran72]

wtf? That is so toxic. Sometimes guys think on it for hours before actually getting to it and as a result come early. That is no reason to not speak for a week. What a major red flag. Consider breaking up! (Yes I know its a joke)

[@vishg5148]

@@Jartran72cool story bro

[@Broockle]

u didn't even say "came"

[@communistpropagandist4608]

By degrowth I more think about the people that buy tonnes of random shit off Temu that breaks within one use and they really need to be stopped. I'm not saying reduce quality of life in areas that matter but we need to stop producing so much trash.

[@nalen5050]

"people are not ready to accept less" (no need to limit that to American), is the reason why we are screwed...

[@Canadish]

Given how little normal people have, it's an awful rhetorical point be telling them they have too much. It's sounds Soviet.

[@haleyspence]

That's a *real* hard struggle to get over if it's not an organic determination. I used to collect glassware, I mean I still do, but when I started I bought *everything* I found. Until at one point I had literally 30+ pie pans and was like...still buying more at yard sales for .50 a pop. It's taken me years but I've finally gone down to like, 1 of each size that I'll use. (Giving away pie pans with pies in them is very satisfying lol) "Consume less" came across for me as "Curate more." I applied that to my kid's toys too, and this year for their birthday they literally only got 1.5 things (twins, had to share the teeter-totter we got them) and instead got them ONE new toy that was theirs and stuff I knew they were going to get a lot out of for a *long* time. Like, the one is probably going to end up in the heirloom box, the other was a stuffy that is going to be loved to death at this rate (I'm glad I sew so I can fix it up a few dozen times) I applied that to my clothes too, being willing to do without for a bit and make do and make repairs has given me a lot more pride in my garments and clothes and has been cheaper in the long run. I needed to replace my boots, so I looked and waited and looked and managed to score a new pair for $5 at the thrift store before I caved and bought a brand new pair for $30. If someone told me I had to start being like this, I would have no idea how to go about it, how to start, what to do etc. so I'm kinda sympathetic to the "not ready to accept less" crew if they didn't go through a "I'm gonna be a minimalist!" phase lol

[@dynamicworlds1]

He's right about rhetorically people refusing to accept less, but really if people had secure housing and medical care I think a lot of people would be happier with less stuff and more free time.

[@alansmithee9769]

You've got some degrowth stuff that's logical but then you've also got that guy who went viral like a week ago on twitter for arguing against washing machines saying that we need to communally wash our clothes by hand.

[@mathusalen1]

He isn't representative of the movement tho, he repeatedly get pushback from some of the main degrowth people like Jason Hickle and Julia Steinberger, who he acusses of being "eco-modernists"

[@Jazzmaster1992]

"The average human would burn the planet down if it meant spending 5 minutes less on the freeway" I hate to say this is correct, but the amount of people who still say things like "I liked when gas was cheaper 4 years ago" are basically saying "an international health crisis was a small price to pay so I could spend a little less money at the pump".

[@digaddog6099]

Degrowth does have one particular rhetorical strength in that it establishes negative consequences for continuing the status quo. If you want to get your workforce to unionize, you won't get many people on your side by just arguing they'll get an increase in wages, because workers see unionization as a risky maneuver for many reasons. They don't want to get fired or suffer from a corrupt union. But if you say, "if things keep going the way they are, do you think you'll be able to feed your kids?" you are much more likely to get your fellow workers on your side. Likewise, if you advocate for socialism, you might argue that workers could see a 2x, 3x, maybe 10x increase in their wages, but on the other hand people will always see the alternative path of the USSR. They're not going to take that wager unless they see consequences to keeping things the same, such as climate catastrophe.

[@Morbidity100]

The problem is I don’t think you can solve a problem that comes from consumerism by applying consumerism

[@ward648]

I knew ThinkThatTrough before Vaush, so I was always confused why Vaush claimed to dislike Degrowth so much. I'm glad to see they do actually agree on the underlying ideas. I guess "Degrowth" is just another leftist term that got poisened over time like "communist" or "anarchist"

[@billiecruz4399]

Vaush rad! hope everyone has a good night

[@TreiberSeptim]

I‘ve stared at rows of different sugary cereal in massive supermarkets, and genuinely thought to myself „Who needs THIS much?“ The amount if trash we produce from keeping stores shelved to the brim, even if they have to throw away large amounts of unsold food, is perverse, insane and disgusting. We kill animals, put their meat in plastic and just throw it away because it looks better when things are always stocked, and we‘d rather buy too much and eat the minimal loss in net profit. No thought given to the 20 Plastic bags full of trash they pick up every other week.

[@Xanthelei]

To the person who asked where poor people will get their protein without meat: you DO know that chickens exist, right? They're the most efficient conversion of undigestible food to digestible food we have when it comes to protein (no, bugs don't count as they are not farmed or widely accepted and chicken is) and WHEN FARMED RESPONSIBLY are way less environmentally impactful than cows. Seriously, aside from what Vaush said about non-meat protein sources, just switch to freakin' chicken instead of beef.

[@joetheagent]

glad someone said this. additional point in favor of chicken... its really hard to beat chicken breast for %protein/fat/calories ratio per serving. other proteins might have slightly more protein ratio wise but none will be as cheap or widely available and widely accepted as chicken.

[@poulhenne]

@@joetheagent: Why would a large amount of fat and calories be a concern in a hugely obese country?

[@joetheagent]

@@poulhenne are you not very bright? Or is your 📚 comprehension 💩 I wonder 🤔

[@joetheagent]

@@poulhenne chicken breast has the highest protein and lowest fat and calorie pre serving than any other land based protein choice. The fact that you made your comment without a quick Google search shows the quality of your comments. Do better.

[@RHLW]

If the projections of our over extraction of resources and the impacts of climate change are correct, as they do appear to be, then degrowth is inevitable. Either people will choose it voluntarily, or the laws of physics shall force it on them.

[@connorsullivan1855]

I feel like most of what people describe as degrowth would be better described as productive growth. Building trains and solar panels both contribute to economic growth, while making people's lives better. I feel like a lot of degrowthers are arguing against some strawman economist who thinks crypto currencies are good because they make a line go up and wants to produce an infinite amount of funko pops to stop the economy from collapsing.

[@smo1704]

If you do it correctly, it absolutely would reduce economic growth, in the GDP sense especially. Take trains for instance. If you build out a nice functional public transit network focusing primarily on rail, trying to maximize synergies with pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, fewer people need cars, so sales of cars decline. Rails aren't as expensive to maintain as roads and have a higher capacity, so rail construction and maintenance doesn't require as much work or as many workers as road maintenance and construction. Rolling stock don't need to be replaced nearly as often as cars are, so less work must be done building new carriages, and maintaining trains isn't going to require nearly the per-capita effort that maintaining the US automobile fleet requires. Overall economic activity declines, but from everything I've seen of commuter satisfaction polling, happiness increases. Another thing would be building more mixed use developments where a single building has businesses operating on the ground floor, and apartments or condos on the upper floors. With this sort of arrangement, people can live within a flight of stairs of where they work, reducing all the associated costs of commuting, without adding any economic activity to replace them. A lot of it is just not doing what doesn't need doing, which does shrink the economy, but not any of the actually necessary or important bits.

[@wermaus]

A garden can build a closer connection to native plants and their lifecylces, be a learning experience, and give us a more flexible food system if approached properly. Some of the richest lands are made rich through close nurture and that is what we should be striving for. Food is fundamentally, keeping it distributed keeps it available and the skills to tend it available. If urbanity is going to have a chance we need to be willing to leverage our labor to nurture our land because land doesn't stop for houses, the soil still sits below the ground, the birds still eat the bugs and the seeds. In a world fueled by neglectful behaviors so rewarded by our system we need to find time to nurture our land.

[@yautl1]

Also, like it or not, we're going to have to return to a more dispersed, agrarian society anyways. Modern industrial agriculture only works because of fossil fuels, you can't run a combine or giant tractor on battery power for the same reason electric semi-trucks were an abject failure.

[@ASDeckard]

Personal gardening consumes 2 to 7 times as much water and fertilizer as industrial farming per output. In most climates it also either requires much more aggressive and much more dangerous pesticides, or alternatively just accepting you're going to lose half of your produce, in which case double those earlier numbers, 4 to 14 times as many inputs per output.

[@D9-THC]

​​​​​​@@ASDeckardabject bullshit and if you ever worked in a related field even indusrial ag plus basic knowledge of gardening you'd know it. Biointensive gardening, for instance, can use up to 67-88% less water per unit of produce compared to traditional farming. Personal gardening isn't a monolithic practice. Most people use integrated pest management not more pesticide. Do you live in a perfectly manicured suburb with play gardens of the upper middle class??? I live in Humboldt. Lotta dry farming and biointensive round here. biointensive gardens can produce up to 4 to 6 times the yield per square foot as conventional industrial farming due to crop diversity, dense planting, and soil care. This higher productivity directly counters the claim that home gardens use 2-7 times more resources. Personal gardens are usually adapted to their local environment, reducing the need for extra inputs like water and fertilizer. In contrast, industrial farms often grow crops in unsuitable regions much more often necessitating heavy external inputs. When was the last time you saw an industrial agop grow anything just for soil fertility or actually have a fertility above 1, 1.5% ?!?! Most farms around here are 4% soil fertility and it's not just the virgin redwoods it's called growing the fertilizer on site whenever possible. Kelp from the ocean helps, too. I know not everyone can do THAT, but biointensive itself is doable all over the world. In big ag Significant food loss occurs at multiple stages: pre-harvest, harvest, transport, and storage, contributing to inefficiency. It’s estimated that about 30-40% of all food produced in the U.S. is wasted. Your bullshit about half the crops getting eaten has me laughing... Please just go get some experience if you're anywhere close to Willits CA I would recommend taking a course in biointensive or at the very least reading up on it before you talk shit about gardens.

[@D9-THC]

​@@yautl1shhh, don't let anyone figure this out. If they can't see the writing on the wall let them enjoy the child labor Cheetos until supply chain collapse. More consumers, more compost. That's my motto B)

[@wermaus]

@@ASDeckard Yeah I'm not encourgaing destructive gardenning, I'm specifically encouraging nurturing the land. Soil water retention of a pollenator garden or food forest is going to BLOW a lawn out of the water. You gotta consider what exists in place now, it's fucking lawns everywhere. You can cycle the energy you took out of the ground back into it. And uhhh NO SPRAY DUH. The losing half the produce is avoidable, it will be super situational. I would rather have people foster that connection than continue to be alienated from it and keep their lawn. I promise you continuing lawns and industrial farming as our standard is about as on course for mass starvation as we can be. We need to increase the flexibility of the system, healthier soil wins that battle. If you actually wanna fight against suburban and urban pesticides your biggest enemy is HOAs and landlords.

[@Piratewaffle43]

We can make energy cleaner and more efficient without shrinking the economy. That's all there is to it.

[@stachu5049]

The idea behind Degrowth is not caring about some magic economy number, but caring about QoL of the people.

[@crono276]

@@stachu5049 Maybe, but you have to repackage the idea to make it sound better

[@stachu5049]

@@crono276 oh yeah that's for sure 👍

[@KaiserThanatos]

Can't trick me into another fashion video.

[@cubecrasher7606]

Germanys economy did not stall because of the lack of nuclear energy, but because of it's low amount of investments into the economy. After the world economic crisis Germany put a limiter on how much dept the gouvernment could take on per year. This rule has capped investments and together with the longtime ruling parties austerity politics has stalled the german economy. Nuclear power was mostly irrelevant for this. And even if the energy policies of Germany were more impactfull on the current problem, the larger impact was made by the ongoing subsidies for the inefficient and dying coal industry, as well as the cutting of subsidies for renewable energies. Also... Germany used to import a lot of the fuel for it's nuclear reactors from Russia...

[@Direwolf1771]

Vaush is basically pointing out how getting things done requires acknowledging that the basic American is hopelessly self-absorbed and disinterested in anything larger than themselves. And he’s absolutely correct.

[@aguspuig6615]

Degrowth is wierd to me as it has two sides, a good and bad one. Theres the good, we make things more efficient without needing to make life worse for anyone, we start living in a studio gibbly aah solarpunk utopia. The bad, an unecessary fixation on making life worse, youll eat the bugs, youll have to manually clean your letrine every week but youll be happy trust me. Combined with some odd youtubers, like that guy with the african accent in 8:17, who in between talking about solar punk utopias often gives actual anti white racist energy, were he cant explain anything without making it about colonisers and how stuff has to be taken back and such. Its just odd and unnecessary, and you can feel some hatred bubbling under the surface

[@picachugirl2036]

I love the idea of a community tool shed, they could even add a check out system like libraries. It would be so convenient for the average person. Some professionals will need their own, but not as many would need to be made. Like imagine if all community rec centers had workshops for people to use, bike rentals, and all that. Even rentals for board games or something.

[@cameronpearce5943]

Pitch it as "Don't consume more, don't consume less, just consume better'

[@TheFamousMockingbird]

no it needs to be consume less. we consume way way way too much

[@poulhenne]

@@TheFamousMockingbird: Over consumption society will be as shameful as flying plantes in the future, when we get rid of the dirty boomer economy.

[@puntodelectura]

This take is on the level of "let's call it SUPERCAPITALSM".

[@hasan7275]

i think what a lot of people miss about consumption and de growth is that we don’t consume stuff for entirely personally or innate reasons, it’s mostly because of the systems at play and their availability. the availability, visibility, and affordability of certain goods will determine how people make choices. the infinite growth that large companies want means they have to continuously find new ways to get people to buy their products at the scale they produce it. They have all the power. you’d need huge incentives from larger powers beyond the consumer base to make actual changes. and that’s why degrowth mfs are so annoying. they’re like vote third party types. it doesn’t matter what individual decisions are being made but instead collective power, and developing that often means working within the systems we have to make things work. i mean we’re talking about things that are also entirely available if not preferable in a capitalist system. the fact we haven’t been pushing towards more efficient ways to produce things without destroying everything around us is a contradiction of how it should work. green energy has much better long term use and profit attached. we should’ve been producing solar panels and making high quality goods for more sustainable profits instead of infinite growth profits.

[@RunningOnAutopilot]

Degrowth - BAD NAME Defund the police - BAD NAME Anarchy - BAD NAME Etc…

[@poulhenne]

They are not bad names by chance. The rich and powerful people just paid huge sums to make the narrative about them so negative. To protect their wealth and power.

[@TheConnorian]

​​@@poulhenne Have you ever considered giving them such an open goal to smear sustainable economics and police reform as bad things by adopting such stupid names was a bad idea?

[@timi462]

@@TheConnorian anarchism literally means "without a ruler" in ancient greek, specifically the monarchs and powerful classes of the 19th centuries started to attach the word anarchy to mean bad things when they started to fear for their lives and positions, it's not like anarchists were waving flags around going "WE WANT TO CAUSE CHAOS AND RANDOMLY KILL PEOPLE", the bourgeoisie co-opted the term.

[@SoulStormZero]

@@poulhenne no its not their genuinely bad or problematic ideas in practice, but they come from good intentions and thoughts.

[@quorryraphael9980]

"anarchy is a bad name" mf who doesn't understand that sometimes the name was fine before it got hit with the bad framing gun

[@DiamondKing-em7oc]

We need to degrowth because what we have isn't something sustainable in the long term.

[@poulhenne]

Capitalism does not care about long term at all. Everything is pump and dump on a ever decreasing timescale.

[@Sebaci]

Nice to see polish creators get Vaush's attention

[@mallow4715]

vaush describing degrowth but insisting he doesnt like degrowth

[@Disthron]

I don't know, I feel like if we could ban people from promoting climate change denialism we might be able to make headway on that issue.

[@pmlbeirao]

It's more like "defund the police". Good intentions, terrible and misleading slogan.

[@briannoel7398]

I thought degrowth was about having a sustainable business model that can survive a shrinking population/demand, no?

[@coldspring22]

Vaush, you should know that much of CO2 emissions by French have been out sourced to China which now manufactured almost every consumer goods.

[@DecadeAgoGaming]

That's the big issue, most people can only imagine growth and they want it now, but we are alredy consuming more resources than earth can generate

[@matiasyannuzzi9655]

"To my knowledge there's never been a group that willingly lessens the quality of their own life in order to mitigate an externality." Argentine libertarians: "Allow us to introduce ourselves."

[@rationalactor8695]

See how you just assume status quo GDP growth equals prosperity? Notice how GDP keeps going up, but quality of life for the vast majority of the population remains stagnant or actually decreases? Just like you can grow GDP without making gains in prosperity, you make gains in prosperity without GDP growth (which primarily benefits the wealthy) while achieving increased prosperity, less work, and a cleaner planet for all. GDP is a terrible metric for prosperity, which is the whole point of degrowth. Vaush's arguments here serve the elite. Baby brained and far from radical. Never thought I would hear "infinite growth on a finite planet is good actually" from someone on the "left".

[@airaloren]

The energetic reality is that nothing can grow exponentially forever. But the current economy is built around delivering that very thing. If it isn’t mathematically or bio-physically possible, it’s imperative to look at the alternatives. Degrowth can’t be implemented at the scale of individuals, because it’s about laws and economic policies at the national level. For example, you can change the metrics of economic success from GDP/GNP to something else. You can remove the imperative to maximize shareholder value quarterly. You can develop metrics that distinguish between harmful and helpful economic activity. You can limit the work week to 20 hours. You can make laws that require goods to be repairable. You can implement single payer healthcare. You can enforce laws that internalize externalities (pollution, etc.). Growing tomatoes in your yard is not degrowth. Personal austerity is not degrowth. I recommend the published works of Christopher Alexander, Kate Raworth and Jason Hickel.

[@codymoon7552]

Vowsh based and redpilled as always

[@SepSyn]

Degrowth is fine when it accounts for quality of life and long term longevity of such Much of our consumer culture does not make us happy. Quality over quantity etc.

[@TatharNuar]

1:30 If I could own my own home, I would plant so many tomatoes

[@jjpemorin4365]

Let's call it "quality of life optimization" and be done with it :-P.

[@DanielBrotherston]

I think de-growth is supposed to be contrasted with consumerism. And ultimately, I think a lot of people aren't there...they don't see how consumerism is a problem. They're fine with buying shit for the sake of buying shit...and the cheaper the shit, the better...to them, it does not matter that it is shit, it is the buying that is the point. I don't know how to help those people, but for them, degrowth will never be a winning idea no matter how you frame it.

[@JanMichalSzulew]

7:25 the original "degrowth in 7 minutes" video (in Polish) was indeed 7 minutes.

[@albertobarbieri117]

Degrowth is consuming less to consume better and not simple austerity where you can buy less H&M shit. Your examples fits but you went another direction. My homegrown tomatoes are not saving the world but educated me to a different mindset, like old clothes in your story. Have you read Sato? Genuine question.

[@MakNaasfalti-jh4bg]

Why do we care about median voter? It's a life or death situation, why not just force this policy we will die without? If we can't have good things without end if the world we plain shouldn't have good things.

[@communistpropagandist4608]

As a vegan it's very satisfying how defeated Vaush sounds when chat asks him if he is a vegan.

[@jimbo1637]

Degrowth is not about the environment. It's about economic equality. The only reason we are able to have such an abundance of goods in the West is because our labor is valued so much more than that of people from the global south. If our labor was valued the same, groceries, clothing, etc. would cost a lot more, and we would have to reduce our consumption.

[@AutoRoll-jv2tq]

Damn Vaush is so twitter brain rotted no it isn’t “just grow a tomato plant” it’s about communities being able to be self sufficient and grow their food , obviously the smaller the crop the smaller the yields and it’s not a replacement for grocery stores but I think that it is better for communities/neighborhoods to have a communal garden, but then again im only a anarchist the thing Vaush has claimed to be but has yet to agree with a single anarchist position.

[@stilltoomanyhats]

D growth sounds great at first, but at some point it just becomes too big to be practical or even enjoyable.

[@hangingthief]

Degrowth should be seen as a positive vision actually, the economy keeps growing, economic policy revolves around growth, and s*** just keeps getting worse and worse for the working class. Less shit, more free time, less income, more savings, I think the south Americans have it right with bein vivir, it's about life over the death that economic growth brings. It's really a matter of consciousness, that actually economic growth isn't good like all the politicians say, it's more like a planetary death machine that just keeps going and going for its own insane reasons and all for the worse.

[@hangingthief]

Also, degrove allows for people to invest their labor in public works that otherwise would not accrue surplus value for Capital. I think we really need 'thought leaders' like vaush to push more revolutionary takes on how to transition society, instead of worrying about what the bourgeois electorate might think which is purely a matter of desire and can be changed.

[@hangingthief]

For example just look at Cuba, after the collapse of the Soviet trading block and under perpetual cold war sanctions, Cuba was left with no means to import food, fuel, or petrochemical fertilizer, and thus had to rapidly transition to ecological agriculture. No instead of solar farms, picture engineering Urban watersheds into hyperproductive intensive raised field agriculture systems as the amerindian civilizations did. Our cities could be full of biodiversity in life and we could grow all of our produce in the city, with field crops grown outside of town. What's such a transition would entail for the climate and biodiversity crisis and social justice would be revolutionary. This is impossible that the state's prerogative remains economic growth at all costs, actually there are ways you could make it capitalist, which I guess are better than doing nothing but I think it would be better if it were free.

[@hangingthief]

Vaush is right about degrowth 'sounding bad' to people who are under the false impression that economic growth is good for anyone or anything other than economic growth. However, that is a whole point, while there does need to be a positive vision that needs to come across in degrowth rhetoric, the negative task is just as essential, which consistent dispelling the deleusion that equates economic growth with progress and good things. What do you grow things to do is say that, yeah actually, what's good for the economy is bad for everyone else and life depending on the economy how's us in a death spiral that we must escape if we are to have an abundant and equitable future. Now vaush prides himself on being a rhetorician, he should really be more confident in our power to convince people that bad things are bad despite what they might think. I think just about everybody gets this on a subconscious level, that's why we need to intervene at the level of public discourse to bring these truths to the light of day.

[@hangingthief]

Oh Speech to text forgive the typos

[@hangingthief]

Just like completely f****** stupid on food actually, yes of course we should grow food where we live, the consequences of done right would fix so many social and ecological problems immediately and also entails land reform. Agroecology is our only hope. AGAIN POOR ASS CUBANS EAT BETTER THAN US AND GROW HALF THEIR FOOD IN CITIES AND THE OTHER HALF ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF TOWNS WHERE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO FARM GETS 40 HECTARES OR WHATEVER I think it's because Bosch is a city slicker he doesn't know how good cities could be if they had more life in them

[@Betweoxwitegan]

I don't like the inherent anti meat stance, because it assumes all meat is equal and inefficiently produced, (which is largely true in large acale farming) however lets say your a hunter and you hunt, butcher and sell an invasive species of mammal or something, I dont think that product should be taxed merely because it's meat, that product was produced sustainably. Then you say well meat is potentially carcinogenic and the seller externalizes the ill effect onto the state but to that I'd say that the evidence is unclear. Then we run into another issue which is the potential health and safety concerns with wild meat, which would necessitate it's processing which would maybe make it less efficient than plant based foods, idk. I think one can produce, distribute and eat meat sustainably, healthily and morally.

[@bargainbincatgirl6698]

Hunting isn't even necesssary. Efficient meat production already exists, just changing what animal you extract the meat is enough to increase efficiency: chicken usually blows beef out of the water in term of efficiency.

[@KeVIn-pm7pu]

Lol Not in those quantities needed you cant. Current meat consumtion blows everything that is hunted by far.

[@KeVIn-pm7pu]

​@@bargainbincatgirl6698 that wont solve the issue only reduces it. Meat consumtion still has to degrees by a lot

[@Betweoxwitegan]

@@KeVIn-pm7pu I never said it didn't... I said that I oppose a universal meat tax, I instead advocate for control mechanisms on industrial and unsustainable farming as a whole, this can be done through direct taxation too, ofc, in the case of meat then it could be done through a universal meat charge and then it could be rebated by ethically and sustainably sourced meat producers or some other system. Obviously industrial farming is prevalent and unsustainable and obviously sustainable meat production is scarce but if you increase their comparative advantage then it'll take hold and increase supply/demand. The primitive rebate system I gave as an example would decrease their cashflow however which would lessen their comparative advantage.

[@quartzofcourse]

If you’re going hunting and just kill a wild animal how would they even tax you for that though

[@MrBlandUsername]

TL;DR Vaush doesn't like the term "degrowth" but actually likes degrowth.

[@khiufu_666]

Myśleć Głębiej u wałsza?????!!!!!!

[@sjenkins91812]

I also grow my own tomatoes, but that's 100% for _me,_ and I'll never go back to canned again!

[@Betweoxwitegan]

Growing food ain't even that difficult tbh, depending on what it is. Like you can grow some vegetables on your windowsill and all you have to do is water it daily, free food, free money, better food, win-win

[@IMelkor42]

Aaaand it becomes a fashion video

[@mintx1720]

thanos style degrowth, anyone?

[@kated3165]

Agreed. There is no way in hell that we could EVER get people to vote for something if they knew it would mean them having "less". Even if that "less" turned out to be better quality/healthier/more enjoyable. Most people wouldn't even be willing to give up beef burgers even if it guaranteed their children inherited a livable planet (instead of a complete hellhole) in exchange.

[@fgregerfeaxcwfeffece]

Not vegan, but cheese is a nice protein source. When I was a poor student and did the numbers it turned out: The expensive supplements are worse or marginally better. In other words it's not even a competition protein bars are just advertising. Selling you sugar/sweetener for an absurd markup. Beans are probably good too, but I did not really ever check the numbers myself.

[@poulhenne]

Cheese is an even worse climate destroyer than red meat. So that is a very bad solution, as is all dairy products.

[@Aethercell]

This segment in which Vaush advocates for de-growth but doesn’t want to confront the actual concept so uses his confused words to confuse his impressionable chat

[@gustavchambert7072]

The only time I see "degrowth" being used to imply some form of austerity is when the term is being criticised by people who dont believe in it. Are there proponents out there who are congenitally bad at framing? Yes. But the vast majority of proponents are capable of framing it in terms like vaush did with clothing - that modern, "grown" society is actually worse in many respects than a more "simple" system. Degrowth= austerity is almost always a capitalist talking point, not a degrowther one. That said, I 1000% agree we need to lead with the carrot and not the stick. We need the stick too, but it should be mostly directed at corporations and the rich.

[@jacobmerrill693]

Vaush is the first time I've seen an "anti" degrowth person talk about it, but everytime I've seen something from a pro degrowth person it's sounded like austerity or misunderstanding GDP. Like the only way the train example actually reduces GDP is if after switching we force the people in the town to do nothing with their extra time and money, literally force them to consume less. Otherwise GDP will increase because these people will spend their time and money consuming other things instead of cars and gas. I'd honestly go so far as to argue that if you ask for policy ideas "degrowth" people are pro-growth and the things they identify as "growth" (like fast fashion and car culture) are actually limiting GDP growth. The name and theory just always seem completely detached from the policies, and like Vaush says is bad branding for the policy objectives

[@Piratewaffle43]

There's definitely an issue of the culture of buying something just to replace it like a week or a month later, or buying food that comes in a bulky plastic package. Make the economy more efficient and sustainable without shrinking it.

[@specialagentdustyponcho1065]

Degrowth is either malthusian (and thus bad), or the name is not at all reflective of what it means (and thus stupid)

[@SomasAcademy]

That only follows if the only kind of "growth" you can picture is population growth, rather than economic growth.

[@aguspuig6615]

@@SomasAcademy more accurately industrial production growth, an economy can grow by having higher quality, trading more, involving intelectual property etc. Not just ''produce more t-shirt''.

[@chuzzbot]

Vaush, languishing in privilege.

[@chuzzbot]

and wasteful tchotchkes,

[@Tenajeh]

"People looked better" ... Uh. I would agree that clothes were better quality and better fitting back then. But if I imagine having to squeeze myself into multiple layers of underwear, overwear, outdoorwear, then a hat or haircloth, I get the heeby-jeebies. I am also trans and when I imagine myself pretransition having no choice of relatively gender neutral fashion and having to go all out with suits, vests, button-up shirts with stiff collars, and necties ... it makes me want to gauge my own eyes out. Today's fashion could be better in terms of quality and fit. But we have finally started to reverse the decline in fashion-creativity that began back in the 16th century and lasted until the 1960s in the western world. And I do not want to go back one bit in this regard.

[@piccalillipit9211]

". But if I imagine having to squeeze myself into..." Thats because you dont know and have never worn clothes that actually fit you. I absolutely assure you they were way more comfortable than you are in your hoodie and jogging pants. How do I know? Im a bespoke tailor of men's historical suits 1890 - 1940 " with suits, vests, button-up shirts with stiff collars, and necties" Infinitely more comfortable than anything you wear I assure you, your exposure to these items is based on modern cuts and badly made garments thatdont fit. You know those high stiff collars - yeah they are comfortable because they are cut for the shirt to end at the base of your neck and the collar is a tube around your neck that moves freely with your neck. Modern shirts the collar forms a V at the front as does the cut of the shirt, so your neck has to move INSIDE the collar. Im sat in a 1900 pattern shirt right now in my living room. It may come as a surprise but people in the past DIDNT LIKE being uncomfortable, and because they were having the clothes made they had the choice. You dont cos you have no control over the making of the clothes.

[@Tenajeh]

@@piccalillipit9211 All fair points. I do think that we should rethink the current fast fashion and go back to specifically tailored fits. I still love the combination of loose fits and stretchy tight fits with elastic materials. There should be something that combines the best of both worlds. Also: More colors for men, damnit! Medieval middle and noble classes had the right ideas.

[@piccalillipit9211]

@@Tenajeh OH I totally agree with all that. Mens clothes in 1900 were WAY more colourful than in 2020. We dont think they were cos we just see black and white pictures. And when you go to 1700 they were AMAZING...!!! "stretchy tight fits with elastic materials" this is very much how bespoke historical clothes feel - but we have to be REALLY clever cos we are not using stretchy fabric. We ahve to add what we call "ease" this is where we use MORE fabric than needed and shrink it in or otherwise hide it to allow the movement. You know how its easier to move in tight lycra than it is in baggy clothes cos they bind on you - THAT it what we are going for. the fabric moves WITH the body and not the body through the fabric. "There should be something that combines the best of both worlds". I 1000% agree.

[@mat3714]

Making stuff more sustainability is not degrowth and until we all live in some utopian matrix reality we need growth to make people want making money so they get out of bed and contribute. Degrowth is a childish outlook on our problems.....too much stuff!?!? Just need to make less stuff !!!! Hello !?!?

[@alphana7055]

Seems more childish to think that everything will be fine and we can keep exploiting the planet without consequences.

[@mat3714]

@@alphana7055 The answer of a child....

[@alphana7055]

@@mat3714 Wow, thanks for that worthless reply not saying anything. Fr tho, why do you think people get out of bed for "growth", sounds like you are child that has yet to work a day in their life.

[@bucklemonster21994]

The way I see degrowth is when we realize its not about "number go up". Are our costumers happy, are our workers happy, is our industry sustainable long term? On an individual level we can think. Do I need more money and stuff? Do I need to travel with plane 4 times a year? or mabye I can grow my hobbies and skills instead?

[@zant2146]

Mf talking like hobbies aren't expensive

[@bucklemonster21994]

@@zant2146 Depends on which hobbies. For example reading: There are many old books free to read onine, or one can go to the library or second had store. Meditation, walking, running, these are basically free. Cycling isn't expensive.

[@zant2146]

@@bucklemonster21994 meditation isn't a hobby Jesus

[@fustilarian1]

The protein from plant sources does not contain amino acids in the correct proportions that the body needs. Not saying it's impossible, but it's just annoying; you need to carefully choose your plant-proteins so that the distribution of amino acids complement each other. Meat as a protein source is just a lot less complicated. This matters a lot if you're into lifting and want more strength/size.

[@skimn9565]

Source: I made it up

[@fustilarian1]

@@skimn9565 It is well known nutritional science. Protein isn't just one thing, it is a collection of 9 essential amino acids. There is a wikipedia page on "protein quality", it will show that most meats are "complete proteins" which contain all 9 essential amino acids. You can look it up.

[@aaronbono4688]

I'm not so sure that you're talking about degrowth as much as you're talking about a shift from quantity to quality.

[@Jcewazhere]

Pay people to vote, don't fine them for not voting. Make the bus cheap and easier than driving, rather than making car ownership too onerous. Ensure locally sourced food is at least as cheap as the stuff trucked in from Mexico or wherever. Subsidize the local farms and or tariff the incoming goods. The velocity of money matters more than the volume. Having a trillion dollars sitting in your mattress benefits nobody. A hundred bucks being spent between people in a community can have huge impacts. I don't want to set the world on fire. I just wanna start a flame in your heart.

[@TSBoncompte]

degrowth cannot be a policy but, rather, a natural consequence of when we cease to organize society around "what makes more money for the owner guy"

[@adamf.charles5857]

ThinkThatThrough / MyślećGłębiej lets gooooooooooo 🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱