[serviceberry]

Because a lot of environmental movements aren't rooted in utilitarianism, but in deeper beliefs that the endless pursuit of growth is inherently evil. The basic idea is that tigers and wolves have as much right to the planet as we do, and we've already taken too much. Hence the degrowth movement, etc.

This is why many environmental activists see cheap, abundant energy as problematic. It would mean less air pollution or less climate change, but it would allow humans to "consume" more of the ecosystem.

To be clear, this isn't my worldview. But as with most other movements advocating for social change, the underlying ideology is usually more complex than it appears.

[zenolijo]

I only personally know one person who had been an active member in Extinction Rebellion and I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. It seems like they all agree that the amount of growth we have today is unsustainable, but what sustainable growth exactly is and in turn how much growth needs to be compromised is not agreed upon. So I don't believe that endless pursuit of growth is against most of their members opinion, they just have a much stricter view on what sustainable growth is (and that some degrowth might be needed to achieve sustainable growth in the long term).

[forinti]

The Sustainable Development Index had Cuba and Equador as the sole sustainable economies in years past.

There's no way we're going to convince the middle classes of the central economies to reduce consumption to that level, or even to convince people in that class of development economy to stop aiming for more.

[genewitch]

> There's no way we're going to convince the middle classes of the central economies to reduce consumption to that level, or even to convince people in that class of development economy to stop aiming for more.

What if there is 200% tariffs on junk they shouldn't be buying anyhow? What if a new car becomes so expensive that the idea of having to replace it in 3-5/years induces outrage and class action lawsuits? What if you were only allowed to own one residence? What if out of season foods were fantastically expensive unless you had a community "garden"?

I know, HN, straight to -4. I'll meet you down there.

[thunderbird120]

People would correctly identify that their standard of living is being reduced for ideological reasons without tangible individual benefits and would likely not respond well to that, resulting in a loss of political power for whatever movement instituted those policies and a reversal of said policies.

[genewitch]

People went with the green bin initiative in the US, perhaps elsewhere. we switched to more fuel efficient cars in general when fuel became more expensive. New home construction and retrofits to make houses fully electric - no gas hobs, not gas furnace. these were all "QOL" adjustments that people have been making.

You have to pitch things the correct way, and it would really help if it wasn't treated as an "Ideological" thing but an ecological and humanitarian thing.

It is not okay to shove our pollution, poor wages and working conditions, and so on, to another country, nor its population. Arguing that it's okay if Chinese and vietnamese and indian folks are treated poorly, have poor health outcomes, and so on, just so long as we get shein and temu and amazon and walmart...

The "there's plenty for everyone, consume buy purchase, it's ok!" is just a lie. you can't do that without harming someone else.

[twoodfin]

If for some unimaginable reason the western world had embraced this philosophy wholeheartedly in 1985, literally billions of people would be struggling in grinding poverty (or worse!) instead of living significantly better lives than their parents or grandparents.

Is it different now?

[ip26]

Most of those only really took off because the QOL sacrifice became close to negligible.

[dmix]

Is this the "Climate Authoritarianism" tree in a 4X game

[genewitch]

this is the big joke, i always score real high up on the 2-axis political tests; because i believe with good science, eschewing "oligarch" money, and getting corruption down real low, a proper government should be fairly draconian about things that affect everyone. So making it illegal to just drain oil from a car onto the street, that's authoritarian. Mandating that used oil must be returned to a "recycling facility", even if that facility just makes bunker oil and heating oil from it - that is also authoritarian.

Yes, there is a need to stop the small minority of humans that will not be good stewards of the planet, the people and creatures on it, and its atmosphere. I'm fine with being labelled an authoritarian.

oh and to answer a possible question about "what is 'good science'", i'd start with looking at scientists that have been doing science for at least a couple of decades, with no factual retractions on their record, or on the record of those they mentored (those who actually wrote the papers?). As an ancillary - their work must be reproducible, ideally by an competing institution - and it should go both ways. if Harvard always poo-poos UC Davis' research publications, then they shouldn't be surprised if the CSU and UC systems scrutinize Harvard's work especially.

to analogize to something i often hear, "We already have laws about that, just enforce them" - we already know what outstanding, excellent science looks like. Reinforce that.

on https://www.mapmypolitics.org/ i show as a lower left centrist, maybe 1 question away from "social Libertarian". I answered as though i were running the country, not as though i were living under the country i was describing. So questions where an answer is my ideal, but is impossible under the current system i answered that way. "Trade should be regulated to prevent unfair competition" was my answer, because "we pay our slaves - er... workers - 5 cents a day and don't care if they die" is unfair competition, to my reasoning. so is "we can provide cheap goods because we pollute the air, land and water, and ship cheap stuff to other countries they 'want' and pollute their air, land, and water, too." A couple examples, there.

[ashoeafoot]

You either convince them or the "security tax on walls, borders, etc." becomes a burden that ends it one way or another. One does not get a choice on the flavor of situationalphysics.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Growth? What growth?

Which Western nations have a fertility rate above replacement?

[tehjoker]

I think this is probably a misrepresentation of degrowth. Perhaps there are some that take an extreme view like that, but it is more that we are very very obviously beyond the limits of sustainable living and something will have to give, now, or worse in the future as we deplete even more resources.

Some of these differences won't be "degrowth" but changes, like shifting to high speed rail and buses over personal cars. Reducing meat in our diets. Giving nature some breathing room. In other words, a different way of living that might take some adjustment but would also be perfectly fine.

Furthermore, we need to consider developing societies. If we continue to consume finite natural resources unsustainably, we cut into the share that could be used to better the lives of the poorest societies on Earth.

I'm not involved in XR though. However, I think it's important to present a highly materialist viewpoint. It's not only about morality, but about ensuring as many people as possible can live decent lives in a renewed balance with nature.

[9dev]

Its funny how every economist would instantly recognise what needs to be done if we weren’t talking about the climate but a publicly traded company. Imagine the company is spending a whole lot more than it is making revenue; they still have a lot of cash reserves, but it’s clear the current business can’t just continue for much longer.

What do you do? Obviously, the first thing you do is make sure the expenses go down. Cut down the unnecessary, slim every operation to what is really required, stabilise the curve so the slope becomes less steep.

Only then can you start thinking of investments in increasing efficiency by means of technology or long shots.

All of this carries over to humanity; we need to achieve a sustainable curve.

[concordDance]

> Hence the degrowth movement, etc.

The oddest thing about this to me is that they don't seem to think through what exactly this implies.

If one truly believes in the need to reduce human population then by far the highest margin things are not things like preserving a few hundred year old forest in England, but mass introduction of contraceptives to the DRC. It'll be places like Nigeria and Congo that dominate in terms of number of humans next century, not dying Europe (whose resource usage will decline even faster as fertility free falls), and those countries are not going to remain low resource consumption for too long.

[Ma8ee]

Population growth decreases with education and higher standard of living, not only in Europe.

[concordDance]

Yup, but those two countries alone are still going to hit 1.5 billion combined at current rates (DRC has 6.05 TFR declining at 0.05 per decade), momentum is key. And if they attain European rates of resource consumption then by that point they'll be by far the biggest "problem" as far as "degrowthers" are concerned.

And unlike, say, India, getting that number down is much easier (people resist being killed, but freely distributed contraceptives would likely by welcomed by women).

[BigGreenJorts]

The introduction of mass contraceptives in DRC and its neighbors is happening. There's a lot of social and economic drivers that make it hard however.