[ralph84]

What's stopping them? There's tons of empty land in the world. Go find a stream in the forest and live a sustenance-level life. Oh, they want everyone else to be miserable too.

[seanmcdirmid]

Perhaps you know this already, but they would be outcompeted very quickly and disappear (like the shakers). It’s like how paying extra taxes voluntarily isn’t a substitute for wanting increased taxation.

[rblatz]

The shakers died out because they were celibate.

[seanmcdirmid]

Yep. What do you think degrowth will lead to if it’s done in the context of growth?

Nature doesn’t reward restraint, either in that kind of productivity or the other kind of productivity.

[makapuf]

Wait a few decades and see if it exuberant growth ... What I think is that we might price natural resources much more expensively. Higher Price and thus growth is not always synonymous with more resources. It is an approximation but better means higher price not more resources.

[lazyjones]

> they would be outcompeted very quickly and disappear

So would we on a larger scale if they had their way.

[seanmcdirmid]

Tragedy of the commons. Unless everyone does it, those that hold back will simply disappear.

[rakoo]

A few thousands people generating no pollution won't even start to scratch the issue. It needs massive follow up to have an effect.

[BlueTemplar]

That didn't work out too well for people that didn't want to own land in England...