'Downshifting' sounds like reducing economic growth, which would destroy investment in emerging economies as the developed ones have less use for them. The resulting poverty would kill people. 'Degrowth' sounds like a lot more of the same thing, with even worse results.
Fair enough, if there's enough economic downfall to such extent that basic human needs can't be covered on an area which relies on exporting required resources rather than being able to sustain itself, deaths would be probable. Although in many cases this could be alleviated to an extent by optimal share of available resources rather than allowing huge inequities to form(as is often the case due to corruption for example).
> as developed ones have less use for them
What an interesting way to put it, I have to admit. Talk about lives when you consider entire economies and ultimately people as resources to sustain your own standard of living.
It gets more interesting when one wonders for example the indirect deaths caused by using commercially optimal energy sources(e.g. fossil fuels) rather than relying on sustainable energy sources. Of course the comparison is silly, it is the fundamental greed for having more which drives us into using sub-optimal solutions which simply won't work in larger scale.
There's also the factor of aiming for actual direct happiness via covering the basic needs rather than hoarding for more and competing for resources which happens at the expense of other people's quality of life. Consider Foxconn factories as an example. If only workers quality of life and working conditions would have been given more value, dozens of suicides and years in desperation would've been avoided. But of course, someone would've had to pay more for their iPhone, which wouldn't have been a problem either in that case. Now it really is a big deal.
Ultimately the problem itself is in relying on growth which then requires more resources than there are available to sustain the growth. Either you reduce the resource consumption or the system balances itself at the expense of those who are the least responsible for the unbalance. Of course, starting with the animal life and nature as we've seen.
> What an interesting way to put it, I have to admit. Talk about lives when you consider entire economies and ultimately people as resources to sustain your own standard of living.
That's how it works. Charity certainly hasn't solved the problem.
> commercially optimal energy sources(e.g. fossil fuels)
Interesting argument, that. Do you consider how many would die from spending more on energy by shifting to commercially sub-optimal energy sources? All of the money has to come from somewhere, after all, and foreign investment is usually easy to cut. So's charity.
> If only workers quality of life and working conditions would have been given more value, dozens of suicides
Recheck the statistics about suicides at Foxconn plants:
"The suicide rate at Foxconn during the suicide spate remained lower than that of the general Chinese population, as well as all 50 states in the United States."
> Ultimately the problem itself is in relying on growth which then requires more resources than there are available to sustain the growth.
Malthusianism never stops to consider that one of the main ways to make advances is to make processes more efficient, which is the primary way to sustain growth. Compare how many people farm now to how many people farmed in 1900.
But equally, I think it's unrealistic to expect growth to continue. We live in a finite world - as much as possible we should be looking for sustainable ventures.
And ideally, bringing up third-world standards of living and lowering ours (in the first world) to match. Will be a major culture shock for some people...
Comments
As far as I'm aware it'd save lives, lots of them.
'Downshifting' sounds like reducing economic growth, which would destroy investment in emerging economies as the developed ones have less use for them. The resulting poverty would kill people. 'Degrowth' sounds like a lot more of the same thing, with even worse results.
Fair enough, if there's enough economic downfall to such extent that basic human needs can't be covered on an area which relies on exporting required resources rather than being able to sustain itself, deaths would be probable. Although in many cases this could be alleviated to an extent by optimal share of available resources rather than allowing huge inequities to form(as is often the case due to corruption for example).
> as developed ones have less use for them What an interesting way to put it, I have to admit. Talk about lives when you consider entire economies and ultimately people as resources to sustain your own standard of living.
It gets more interesting when one wonders for example the indirect deaths caused by using commercially optimal energy sources(e.g. fossil fuels) rather than relying on sustainable energy sources. Of course the comparison is silly, it is the fundamental greed for having more which drives us into using sub-optimal solutions which simply won't work in larger scale.
There's also the factor of aiming for actual direct happiness via covering the basic needs rather than hoarding for more and competing for resources which happens at the expense of other people's quality of life. Consider Foxconn factories as an example. If only workers quality of life and working conditions would have been given more value, dozens of suicides and years in desperation would've been avoided. But of course, someone would've had to pay more for their iPhone, which wouldn't have been a problem either in that case. Now it really is a big deal.
Ultimately the problem itself is in relying on growth which then requires more resources than there are available to sustain the growth. Either you reduce the resource consumption or the system balances itself at the expense of those who are the least responsible for the unbalance. Of course, starting with the animal life and nature as we've seen.
> What an interesting way to put it, I have to admit. Talk about lives when you consider entire economies and ultimately people as resources to sustain your own standard of living.
That's how it works. Charity certainly hasn't solved the problem.
> commercially optimal energy sources(e.g. fossil fuels)
Interesting argument, that. Do you consider how many would die from spending more on energy by shifting to commercially sub-optimal energy sources? All of the money has to come from somewhere, after all, and foreign investment is usually easy to cut. So's charity.
> If only workers quality of life and working conditions would have been given more value, dozens of suicides
Recheck the statistics about suicides at Foxconn plants:
"The suicide rate at Foxconn during the suicide spate remained lower than that of the general Chinese population, as well as all 50 states in the United States."
http://www.economist.com/node/16231588
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-05-26/tech/30097107...
> Ultimately the problem itself is in relying on growth which then requires more resources than there are available to sustain the growth.
Malthusianism never stops to consider that one of the main ways to make advances is to make processes more efficient, which is the primary way to sustain growth. Compare how many people farm now to how many people farmed in 1900.
But equally, I think it's unrealistic to expect growth to continue. We live in a finite world - as much as possible we should be looking for sustainable ventures.
And ideally, bringing up third-world standards of living and lowering ours (in the first world) to match. Will be a major culture shock for some people...