[lanfeust6]

This ignores innovation, which drastically reduces externalities over time (as it has historically; see smog and pollution from England Industrial revolution). Granted that can benefit or even require investment from the State to expedite things. R&D spending was better in the 20th century. At any rate you cannot divorce said innovation from growth and consumption.

By contrast, "degrowth" would inflict harm and make it impossible for developing countries to improve their quality of life. People aren't immigrating to the U.S. for the healthcare. We can easily qualify why it represents a "better life": houses, vehicles, abundance of food, goods and conveniences, public infrastructure and services, etc.

Global population growth rate for it's part is poised to stagnate. There's no question of "infinite growth", nor is it relied upon.

[ch4s3]

These arguments all fell like they're warning that we'll all be drowning in horse manure and running out of guano in 5 years. Likening economic growth to the growth of organisms in a petri dish is the wrong model entirely. We are all the time finding new uses for things and moving on from old ways of powering society. It on;y looks static if you're quite myopic.

[jagged-chisel]

> We are all the time finding new uses for things and moving on from old ways of powering society.

Can you provide some examples? With the "all the time" phrasing, something recent would be preferred. All I see for a couple decades is new schemes to further enrich those with money at the expense of those without money.

[ch4s3]

Sure, we're rapidly expanding battery technology alongside solar and wind which changes the calculus with respect to the externalities of power generation. Many industrial processes have moved from coal to LNG which is safer/cleaner to produce and creates less air pollution and emits less CO2 when burned.

As I mentioned in another comment, agriculture has become incredibly efficient in the broader west and China. We grow far more on far less land and this has involved all sort of innovations. New biotech promises even more gains. We're on the cusp of cereal crops being engineered to fix nitrogen which would dramatically reduce fertilizer use.

Mass timber is another cool example.

[lm28469]

Meanwhile we observe a 75% collapse of wildlife world wide since 1970, but yeah sure we are constantly finding new "things"! Amazing!

[ch4s3]

Most of this is in developing nations where people are expanding agriculture into wild areas rather than implementing innovations in more intensive agriculture. Developed nations are currently increasing forest cover and wild land. You're demonstrating the EXACT myopia I'm referring to.

[lm28469]

Ah, we're holding it wrong I guess. It starts to sound a lot like the very strong "we never really actually tried real communism" argument.

[ch4s3]

Not at all. I'm arguing that the deployment of new processes and technology is uneven and takes time to permeate the global economy. You can see the progress in a lot of places, it's just not everywhere yet. Many countries are still operating the mid 20th century tech stack, or in many cases earlier iterations. There's a lot of work that could be done on clear land registries for example that would alleviate a lot of deforestation. Slash and burn agriculture doesn't happen in developed economies, and is a solvable problem.

[lm28469]

I earn less than my grandparents adjusted for inflation (they quit school at 18, I have a master's degree in computer science), my peers can't afford housing anymore, people don't have kids because it's too expensive, I'm expected to retire 10+ years later than them too, and that's in western Europe where we got plenty of this "innovation" and "technology", weekly working hours are expected to go up, public services are decreasing in quality.

So what gives? Where is all the good stuff? Is it this new macbook I can buy for 599?

[simgt]

People are emigrating to the U.S because of decades of soft power and propaganda, and mostly to make money to send to their families or head back after a couple years.

On all the metrics that actually matter to quality of life (ie. not sqm of mowed grass per person or avg height of SUV bonnet), the EU rates higher than the US.

[lanfeust6]

Remind me, what's money for again?

If people cared about mere subsistence, they wouldn't move to the U.S. They like everything that comes with greater income. You can't divorce that from metrics tracking quality of life.

Europe has a better safety net, but basically anywhere in the West is an improvement over their origin countries for the most part. And consider: the first choice for those interested in North America is not Canada, it's the U.S. The earning potential is higher, and immigrants work hard. They mostly don't care that there's a lesser social safety net.

[lm28469]

> see smog and pollution from England Industrial revolution

I love how people keep using the "it was worse during the industrial evolution" argument as a gotcha for every environmental and societal issues... no shit my dude, really? even in the middle of the "dark ages" we didn't send 8 years old kids down mines for 10+ hours a day or make people work 12 to 16 hours a day, 6 days a week... WW2 era Poland was literally a better place to live in than England during the industrial revolution

They had 0 smog and 0 pollution before all these innovations, we had 200 years of insane innovations and smog/pollution is now consistently in the top 5 leading causes of deaths every single year, you scaled it from like 5 cities in England to the entire planet

[lanfeust6]

> I love how people keep using the "it was worse during the industrial evolution" argument as a gotcha for every environmental and societal issue

Maybe you think I'm saying something I'm not.

> They had 0 smog and 0 pollution before all these innovations

That's not true. Man-made ecological disasters go back a long ways, but they did not scale up as much until the population growth exploded following the invention of ammonia and the industrial revolution. Until then, 80% of people worked the land. If you understand the reasons behind the deadly plagues that decimated numbers in middle-age Europe, it was clearly not pollution-free.

With technological progress, and policy, total emissions are falling in developed countries despite growing population. They were still growing rapidly in China until recent years where fossil fuel use has plateaued.

Now emissions are growing because other East Asian countries are getting rich, e.g. India, Vietnam. Fortunately they are not missing a beat taking advantage of renewables either.

[greygoo222]

Pollution is not in the "top 5 leading causes of death" unless you count all deaths caused by diseases that are exacerbated by pollution as caused by pollution.