Hickel 2021 What does degrowth mean A few points of clarification.pdf
Discussion of the degrowth philosophy in this paper.
The alternative argument to degrowth is discussed in this paper
Seven Billion Solutions Strong _ The Breakthrough Institute.pdf
Essentially the Malthusian scenario has been proven to be wrong so far. The factor not considered in the global limits approach is the ingenuity of humans as a resource along with physical resources.
More people equals more human resources with which to overcome problems.
Interesting rebuttal of the technological solution to limits to growth. Technology serves the needs and priorities of society. While explicit societal goals are to exploit nature, enrich the elites and ignore the long term, then we can expect technology and innovation to move in this direction. So, we will develop technologies that hasten collapse instead of preventing it. (Mann pg. 44)
‘Seven Billion Solutions Strong’ provides a much more optimistic future than the ‘collapse porn’ we are often exposed to. Desrochers and Szurmak provide a Promethean alternative to Malthusian pessimism. Malthusians, in their discourse on planetary boundaries, forget that humanity is also a resource that has no boundary, and the humans have continued to provide the innovation needed to step over apparent limits to growth. The obvious question is, are there limits to this process, and have we reached the point where this growth paradigm will no longer serve? Is our current age different to the historical examples Desrochers and Szurmak provide?
The other paper by John Hickel discusses degrowth. Hickel (2021, pg. 1106) proposes “a planned reduction of energy and resource throughput … to bring the economy back into balance with the living world…”. This is achieved through adopting a circular economy and efficient use of resources to keep us within our planetary boundaries, rather than a reduction in GDP or personal wealth (Braungart & McDonough 2009, Raworth 2018). It would also, according to Hickel, herald a more equitable distribution of resources across the planet. Hickel views our current situation as unique, and a new paradigm is needed to move forward. Continued growth will not provide solutions to our environmental problems. Of course, the fear of degrowth is that it will slow the economy resulting in a reduction in personal wealth and quality of life.
The presentation of these two papers gives the impression that we must make a choice and opens the possibility of a long and destructive battle between these conflicting ideologies. I wondered if there isn’t a middle way. Personally, I feel that the current population of the Earth provides enough critical mass for innovation. I would like to think that we could maintain a stable population under an umbrella of technological development and infrastructure growth. This could be underpinned by a ‘la via campasina’ of smaller egalitarian cooperatives across the globe, providing autonomy, social stability, and human enterprise. The issue of course would be to establish the sociopolitical structures to protect the via campasina system from the power of the larger technology and infrastructure enterprises.
Braungart, M & McDonough, W 2009, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things, 1st Ed, Vintage Random House, UK.
Raworth, K 2018, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist, 1st Ed, Random House, UK.