[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.