[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?

[genewitch]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

i don't know, you tell me. And billions are in poverty now so i'm not sure this is a productive conversation. 44.9% of the global population is under $6.85 per day. 740mm try to survive on less than $2.15 a day.

45% of the earth's population is 3,700,000,000 or so, which, if my counting of commas is correct, is "literally billions of people"

[ip26]

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

[serviceberry]

More importantly, a lot of it was hidden from view. Your washing machine and laundry detergent might be not as good as 30 years ago, but... do you know that for sure? And when did that happen? Maybe you're just imagining it.

Your old home had a gas furnace, and then you bought new construction and it's all-electric. Did the government do this? Are you even gonna think about it when making an offer? Your bill is gonna be higher, but how much of it is just because it's a different home?

And even then... you get away with it for a while, and then it all of sudden becomes a political talking point.

[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?