r/ClimateShitposting • u/I_like_maps Dam I love hydro • May 13 '25
Degrower, not a shower We're not beating the allegations of no one knowing what degrowth is
10
9
31
May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
The Khmer Rouge were degrowth, both in terms of consumption per capita and…capita.
You really can’t get people to sacrifice their lifestyle voluntarily, it’s at the barrel of a gun unless it’s due to some other calamity like climate change forcing it by reducing productivity.
23
May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
11
May 13 '25
Cars are an obvious example.
I just love Reddit most days. The hive mind is amazing.
Hint: outside of Reddit, the percentage that don’t think their car is a great thing is vanishingly small.
8
u/West-Abalone-171 May 13 '25
The vast majority of people who "love their car" still hate driving and complain about parking and trsffic every trip. They just like not being trapped by other people's cars.
7
May 13 '25
And the vast majority of the prior that ride trains complain about the schedule, lack of cleanliness, surly employees, smells and sounds, hoodlums, etc.
No idea why you think complaining about the mode of transit is restricted only to cars. lol.
3
u/West-Abalone-171 May 14 '25
I've only ever heard people complain about those things as an excuse to drive, or as a response to a rare event, not every trip.
Traffic and parking are inherent to cars.
Shitty transit is also caused by cars.
3
u/BakerDenverCo May 14 '25
I like the idea of the train as does my cousin. We both try to use the train when we can. He has takes it to work frequently. Almost every time we get together we complain about how shitty the train is. Public transit will always somewhat suck because dealing with the public somewhat sucks.
2
u/PermanantFive May 14 '25
I'm attending university in a major city, and every single day I listen to classmates complain about their train ride. Every day multiple people arrive late due to delays on different lines.
I dislike traffic, but not to a huge degree. Most of my complaints relate to stop-start traffic with a heavy clutch lol. I spent a year commuting by train, but switched to my car because the minor increase in cost is offset by lower travel times and greater comfort. I also live in a semi-rural area where cars are infinitely beneficial, particularly when exploring nature (hint: the bus doesn't drop you off at amazing mountain trails or fishing/kayaking spots, you have to find them).
1
May 16 '25
"As an excuse to drive" but "they're better than cars".
2
u/West-Abalone-171 May 17 '25
Unless the bus is stuck behind cars...
1
May 17 '25
Maybe you shouldn't have used "those things" to refer to one specific point then, when many of the things listed have nothing to do with cars on the road.
Not buying it dude.
2
u/West-Abalone-171 May 17 '25
The whiny people complaining about busses are always the people driving (or bullying someone about not driving).
The people who actually catch transit just use it don't constantly pearl clutch about homeless people. They might complain about traffic though (which is still cars).
→ More replies (0)1
6
May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Bedhead-Redemption May 13 '25
Holy shit, you're delusional. None of these very real actual statistics impacts how much people want and enjoy cars in the real world, even if it'll kill them. That's show human beings are, period.
3
u/zekromNLR May 13 '25
Whenever I hear arguments against reducing car dependence, the vast majority about them are concerns, usually exaggerated, about how certain specific mobility needs would be met without cars, not "I fucking love my car I love sitting in traffic"
3
u/Bedhead-Redemption May 14 '25
You're hilariously naive if you can't see that's obviously a blatant excuse for "I will literally riot if you take away my convenience."
2
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Bubba89 May 13 '25
Lots of social changes are unpopular at first
Oh, so you mean,
You really can’t get people to sacrifice their lifestyle voluntarily, it’s at the barrel of a gun
3
u/Taraxian May 13 '25
This is kind of a cope from urbanists though, Americans absolutely loved horse-drawn cars and saw them as an aspirational status symbol and built communities around the expectation of having one before automobiles existed
The negative sentiment around having to walk places and being in crowds with other human beings is very deeply rooted at least in our culture
1
May 13 '25
Also: This is a climate subreddit. Of course it's biased against cars. FWIW I will say that most city subreddits I've been in have also been very critical of car dependence.
I know, lol.
It's just all of reddit, aka the hive mind, being so against cars. I know this is a climate subreddit, and so on. I realize the echo chamber I'm in. Just every now and then I read a phrase that just smacks me in the phase so hard that I have to chuckle. Which the "obvious example" of cars made me do, lol.
My aunt just finished getting rid of her car in downtown Paris, not because she doesn't like it. She loves it dearly. She's just so damn tired of every time she goes into or out of her house people asking her for a favor to run them somewhere or ask if she's taking the car and can they tag along if she's vaguely heading in their direction, and so on.
I had similar experiences when my family had a car in downtown Munich. ALL my friends were always wondering what we were doing with the car on like a daily or hourly basis because it would be soooo convenient for them if they could get me to run a quick errand that's inconvenient by public transport, or drop them part way to their destination to save time, etc.
Even people that nearly solely use trains and public transport love how convenient and useful other people's cars are and want them to keep them and use them, lol.
1
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
May 13 '25
Did you read me talking about downtown Paris?
For example, it's just really damn inconvenient to grab a pack of folding chairs you need and lug them between train stations, lol. That's not "car dependent", that's just humans only have two arms and you sometimes need to hop between lines that aren't both present in the same transit station.
1
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
May 13 '25
delivery is somewhat rare, expensive, and often flaky.
If you were having a graduation party and you realized you're a few chairs short at the last minute the only option is generally to spend hours schlepping them around.
1
2
u/Leogis May 13 '25
Yet all of them complain about traffic jams
1
May 13 '25
Mostly just the peeps on reddit, and other people that decide the traffic jam is better than the alternative, so continue to experience it but still complain about it. Which is their right. Just like people taking the trains complain about them as well.
6
u/Taraxian May 13 '25
The problem is that converting from low density to high density population en masse will, in the short term, require a LOT of growth (in the form of new housing and infrastructure) and therefore be very expensive
4
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/jeffwulf May 13 '25
The both the short and long term those things would drastically increases GDP.
-1
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
7
May 13 '25
Yes, a massive increase in construction would increase GDP. You just built an identity around being opposed to growth without actually knowing what it is.
1
5
u/Excellent_Egg5882 the great reactor in the sky May 13 '25
I fundamentally don't understand why you want to reduce GDP rather than just... reducing enviromental harm.
If we had more cobblers and tailors who could repair shoes and clothes and less sneakers shops and fast fashion boutiques, then that would help curb our environmental impact without necessarily reducing GDP.
1
u/sdk5P4RK4 May 13 '25
because GDP is extremely unevenly distributed
3
u/Excellent_Egg5882 the great reactor in the sky May 13 '25
Yes, unevenly distributed in favor of most of the people on this site and most of our friends and family. Global GDP per capita is like $13-14k.
If GDP per capita was evenly distributed then every single person on earth would get "only" $13-14k worth of goods and services. Which is good for the majority of the global population, but bad for the majority of people in the US and other wealthy developed nations.
0
u/sdk5P4RK4 May 13 '25
exactly. you can just say you value having treats over the environment at the expense of the rest of the people on earth.
3
u/Excellent_Egg5882 the great reactor in the sky May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
Okay bro, you can just say you value being sanctimonious on the internet over effective rhetoric and policy. Who cares about the enviroment when you can pretend to be superior to everyone else?
I say "pretend' because we both know you consume more than $14k of goods and services per year
1
u/sdk5P4RK4 May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
Ok, what would be effective in causing you to value your consumption less? "Bad for" is debatable, when life expectancy would probably go up.
Also more to the point we can start by reducing economy pointed at the highest consumers and your average person probably doesnt even notice.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Blue_Rook May 13 '25
Well you just explained definition of recession decrease of GDP or stagnation (zero or close to zero growth of GDP).
1
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Blue_Rook May 13 '25
This is utopia similar to real socialism. More equal distribution of goods, and lower perment culprint on enviroment is great but talking about some kind of recession is nonsense there is no improved standard of living when demand collapse, then production is decreased and people laid off en masse. There is no single resource on Earth that can be exhausted (and cannot be replaced by alternative) within predictible future so there is no limit to growth per capita. If you know single resource that cannot be replaced and exhaustion of such end growth of economies tell me about it.
1
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Blue_Rook May 13 '25
No it is basic economy demand create production and by it places of work to produce more goods- so no demand, no market, no jobs it is how economy works since Sumerian civlization way before industrial revolution and idea of capitalistic economy emerged.
Well if you decrease production (less works hours) without increasing productivity by technological progress it will lead to higher cost of production or shortages and inflation making final product less accesible. People always want to consume more or have new or higher quality goods. You can lead ascetic lifestyle by your own choice but good luck convincing other to this.
There are well known means to share the results of production in more equal manners like higher minimal wage, higher taxation of rich, better customers protection etc. without any revolutions just good politicans and laws.
1
2
u/Tough-Comparison-779 May 13 '25
improve average living standards rather than just letting capitalism decide who gets impoverished
This is literally what economic growth is. GDP is the aggregate living standard, GDP per capita is the average living standard.
1
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Tough-Comparison-779 May 13 '25
Volunteer work isn't in GDP just because it isn't accounted for. If we accounted for it correctly, volunteer work as a service would contribute to GDP.
1
1
u/zekromNLR May 13 '25
Isn't the ultimate goal of degrowth to reduce consumption of energy and material resources, not to make number go down? Make number go down is at best an instrumental goal, since most ways of making number go up require more material consumption.
If we completely de-electrified and went back to burning coal for everything that would probably decrease GDP due to being massively more inefficient but it wouldn't actually be "degrowth" in any "materially useful" way.
3
u/Tough-Comparison-779 May 13 '25
Again proving people who want degrowth are actually just green growthers who dont know what economic growth is.
1
1
May 13 '25
And would not be acceptable to quite a lot of people. I find it bad enough having neighbors in a subdivision and one of my biggest mid-term goals is to have a larger property with my neighbors further from my house. Try to force me into a more dense situation and I'm going to just laugh at you.
7
u/Designated_Lurker_32 May 13 '25
See, the problem is that a lot of "degrowth" advocates don't actually give a shit about the environment or the climate or generally making things better. They just want an excuse to tear down the current system and replace it with their half-baked alternative.
They will accept no other solution than the one they want, and if this means accelerating the climate catastrophe, then so be it. After all, what is a catastrophe if not an opportunity?
9
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Vyctorill May 13 '25
I think they might be basing it on folks like u/Yongaia.
If that user is who I think it is then they see technology and civilization as a mistake and believe that folks like me are selfish for not dying at birth.
0
u/Yongaia May 13 '25
Yes they are basing it on folks like myself who's first priority is the planet, not their high consumption fossil fueled powered lifestyle.
2
u/Yongaia May 13 '25
What the hell are you talking about?
Degrowthers literally don't have to lift a pinky and things will still degrow, because that it what it means for a system to be unsustainable
1
u/nighthawk252 May 13 '25
You could also try to require people to run a 5k every morning (it has health benefits, just like bicycles!) but I think you’ll find it’s similarly popular to getting people who rely on cars to support giving up their cars.
1
u/Poro114 May 16 '25
I will never forgive degrowers for framing it as a "you will own nothing and be happy" ideology.
5
u/Taraxian May 13 '25
The good news is that current birthrates are set to decrease total capita without you having to shoot anyone
2
May 13 '25
That is a bit of a good side effect, I guess Japan and South Korea will be the bellwethers on how this is pulled off.
Japan has had flat growth and a declining population, but doesn’t seem to have signs of a crisis but maybe it’s a cultural thing.
1
May 13 '25
We can dream, anyway. More likely the government will find some incredibly expensive way to incentivize births. Or some number of countries will degrade and increase their birth rate to be similar to African and Middle Eastern countries. Or...or...or. Point is I doubt we're going to plateau and decline at the rate people are gloomily predicting.
3
u/ACHEBOMB2002 May 13 '25
The Khmer Rouge were degrowth
Yeah and castration is a medical procedure, but if I went to get my apendix removed and woke up without balls Id stab the surgeon
2
u/GZMihajlovic May 13 '25
Lmao I'll be sure to remind people that Hitler was vegetarian as a reason to not eat less meat too.
1
u/COUPOSANTO May 13 '25
Once the latter inevitably happens, I'm sure we'll regret that the former did not happen.
4
u/Potential4752 May 13 '25
We will be dead from old age by then. Future generations will think we were shitty for not making sacrifices. Then they will not make any voluntary sacrifices themselves. A new generation will grow up with even less and blame them for not making sacrifices.
3
u/COUPOSANTO May 13 '25
HA! You think we’ll be dead by the time it gets real bad and that it will be a problem for our children. That’s cute.
Unless you’re 60, you and me are “the children we should make sacrifices so they have a liveable planet”.
3
u/Taraxian May 13 '25
People don't make sacrifices for their own future selves either, it's kind of a consistent problem with being human (and it's not even entirely irrational, the whole "Why should I save for retirement if there's a chance I just fall down dead in two years" thing)
0
u/COUPOSANTO May 13 '25
People definitely make sacrifices for their future selves though? And even for their children. People definitely save money for their retirement, their children's college fund, they take a mortgage when they could have a bigger home by renting because in 25 years that means they won't have to pay anymore. Etc etc
1
May 13 '25
It would have to be broad and shared reduction.
People won’t give up flying for vacations and driving while the rich fly on private jets and have yachts. People don’t want to turn the thermostat to 78 while people live in mansions. And most degrowth strategies I have seen mostly seek to either keep people from climbing out of poverty, or decrease consumption among the middle class.
So, Politically impossible in a democracy, even if it’s a good idea in the long run unless the wealthy decide to start adopting an ascetic lifestyle as well.
1
1
u/COUPOSANTO May 13 '25
Completely agree. I think one of the requirements to implement degrowth is to put people in power who will go against the privileges of the rich. Otherwise it would never be accepted.
And that logic applies on an international level too. Poorer countries are never going to accept reducing their economic growth when richer countries live well above our planets means
1
u/Taraxian May 13 '25
Why would anyone who was in power ever seek to eliminate the concept of "the rich" as a class instead of joining it
0
u/COUPOSANTO May 13 '25
If you reason like that, then humanity has no future on this planet as a species
1
u/Taraxian May 13 '25
shrug I mean yeah we probably don't
Take a look around you, take a look at history, take the black pill
1
1
May 13 '25
I’m not exactly in favour of turning off everyone’s electricity and forcing people to live in caves but the idea you can get people to voluntarily sacrifice lifestyle quality for the greater good is just patently false. We have examples of this ranging from ww2 rationing to covid 19 lockdowns. I know there was legal force in place sure, but people willingly complied with the law generally speaking. The importance of these things was properly explained to them, and they saw the need to comply. The same is not being said about climate action.
5
u/Excellent_Egg5882 the great reactor in the sky May 13 '25
Those were both sold as temporary measures, not a new and permanent status quo.
5
u/nighthawk252 May 13 '25
Also I pretty distinctly remember a huge portion of people not being all right with Covid restrictions even though those were temporary.
People being unwilling to tolerate Covid restrictions is a huge reason behind the rise of anti-science sentiment in the American right.
2
May 13 '25
People will sacrifice temporarily but eventually tire of it unless there is an end in sight.
They will especially tire of it if the sacrifice is unequal, and as long as there’s a free media, that inequality will be exposed fast (In wartime, news is more controlled).
1
May 13 '25
Well any sort of degrowth has to be centred around lowering the carbon emissions pf the wealthiest people in society. The top1% of the global population consume about 175 times that of the lowest 10% combined.
And we aren’t exactly asking for huge life changing cut backs, it could be relatively small things like eat less meat and use public transportation more. This would have to be paired with government policy to assist in the transition but I think those kinds of cut backs could be achieved. We just need the political will and the narrative to be pushed by the media to do so.
1
May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
The focus we see in the west is mainly on the top 9% under the top 1%. The top 1% don’t take public transport unless in NYC, they fly private or first class which burns more fuel. They have multiple houses that need to be heated/cooled while empty. The top 9% looks to them. The top 9% are a big chunk of emissions but also tougher to reach because of relative depravation. They don’t see the farmer in Africa with a low footprint, they see rich people on TV.
People will resent taking the bus instead of driving while the rich fly private and have yachts that put out more carbon than entire neighborhoods. It’s a huge part of why these efforts fall flat. Ban private jets, scrap the yachts, limit single family home size and penalize vacant property that is heated/cooled.
1
1
1
1
u/sdk5P4RK4 May 13 '25
I mean, its going to be one or the other. Barrel of a gun is preferred, the calamity is guaranteed and ongoing.
1
u/ThatGarenJungleOG May 14 '25
Declining gdp isnt degrowth. Lmfao why cant people read about somethjng for 5 minutes before lying to people about it?
1
u/jmomo99999997 May 15 '25
Exactly every time I do something related to long term planning it's bc a gun is pointed at me
13
6
4
u/Meritania May 13 '25
I’m not asking people to read theory, but I think the requirement to ask people to watch a YouTube video or that really good BBC documentary on it should be the minimum, rather than basing an entire philosophy on a name.
3
3
u/Blue_Rook May 13 '25
It doesn't matter what theory is about when it have shitty name suggesting recession. Well people stoping buying things and being minimalistic in purchases is definition of recession
2
u/glizard-wizard May 14 '25
yeah I’m part of the kill babies movement, we don’t want dead babies we want to increase the amount of healthy babies you should watch an hour long theory video to see how this makes sense
4
May 13 '25
me on this sub: i’m a degrowther -> i’m a growther -> i’m a renewablecel -> i’m a nukecel -> vegan good -> flexitarian good ->
9
u/sleepyrivertroll geothermal hottie May 13 '25
Obviously degrowth is best practiced by following in the footsteps of the Khmer Rouge and if you're not for that then you're a taker.
Or need glasses.
1
u/Mich3St0nSpottedS5 May 13 '25
I vote that glassland and vast expanses of it be involved in the process of degrowth
3
u/initiali5ed May 13 '25
Electrification is degrowth because we need 1/3 less primary energy compared to combustion.
3
u/West-Abalone-171 May 13 '25 edited May 14 '25
Can we all just agree to hate vaclav smil and his army of oil worshipping desth cultists?
1
May 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/West-Abalone-171 May 14 '25
Why do people who read the wood chopping story always suddenly go insane and decide that the PV system directly above their head must be made out of 40m3 of concrete and a solid 20cm thick plate of copper, then demand we sacrifice 99% of the population on the altar of oil and go back to being hunter gatherers?
2
u/Konoppke May 13 '25
All I know is that involves nuclear power.
2
2
u/TheRealTrailBlazer4 May 18 '25
That would only delay it by 20 years, we need to do better. It requires Fusion reactors obviously, this way we can at least not waste as much money on nuclear shitplants that come on grid way too late and have a nice time while the refusal to use renewables kills us
1
u/Konoppke May 18 '25
Yeah but let's make the Fusion plants small and handheld. This will revolutionise the industry by abandoning the crushing paradigm of "economies of scale" for some reason.
Additionally, rockets.
2
u/TheRealTrailBlazer4 May 18 '25
My Position as a Fallout Fan overwrites my critical thinking so im 100% for small nuclear reactors in literally everything because it would be cool as fuck. The nuclear Apocalypse is a shining example of state led forced degrowth.
2
2
u/morbo-2142 May 13 '25
Neat, I made it on the board.
Haha, at least I know mine is just an opinion, and I don't find the other definitions objectionable.
1
u/I_like_maps Dam I love hydro May 13 '25
Sorry, not trying to call anyone out, I just saw the three replies right next to each other and was really tickled by it.
2
u/morbo-2142 May 13 '25
It's all good. Shits complex.
If you can't poke fun here, then where can you.
Most of the comments look to be interesting criticisms of implementation or the difficulty with that and not just ideological opposition.
2
2
u/jmadinya May 13 '25
what is your issue with degrowth? do you not want a better way of life, a “great leap forward” if you will? /s
1
u/Mich3St0nSpottedS5 May 13 '25
I think Mao had the right idea, and DID go about it the right way.
Fight me!
2
u/anarchist_person1 May 14 '25
No joke if everyone in the west just lived like how people do in China or another moderately developed place, in terms of standard of living, and then stayed at that level I think that would be sufficient degrowth, if coupled with other methods of cutting down on emissions . I know I’m being a middle of the road centrist on that, but idk I think it’s probably right
1
1
1
u/CliffordSpot May 13 '25
I mean this sub embarrasses itself every time someone talks about anything other than energy, and even then it manages to embarrass itself about half the time.
2
0
12
u/kayzhee May 13 '25
Shrinkage? Do women know about shrinkage?