Phillips wears his antagonism on his sleeve throughout, referring to Transition folk, degrowthers and the wide spectrum of the Green/alternative economics world as “anti-packaging jihadis”, “degrowth militants”, “green Mr Magoos”, and "an army of tattooed-and-bearded, twelve-dollar-farmers’-market-marmalade-smearing, kale-bothering, latter-day Lady Bracknells"
I’m gonna go with a thanks but no thanks on Austerity Ecology
Hard to see an alternative to degrowth when its opponents feel the need to write articles with the thesis “actually, extinction isn’t so bad”
Based on the review, it doesn’t seem like he has much of a handle on what proponents of degrowth are actually arguing. The idea isn’t to stop technological progress in its tracks, it’s to orient the economy away from emphasis on productivity per se to meet everyone’s needs at a lower resource intensity.
it doesn’t seem like he has much of a handle on what proponents of degrowth are actually arguing
His argument is actually that the degrowthers don’t understand what their own position actually is:
degrowth unwittingly endorses what would be an imposition of austerity on the Western working class far beyond anything a Thatcher, Cameron or May could imagine, this time in the name of the planet.
That article doesn’t do anything to dispel my suspicions that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
The most egregious aspects of the article were addressed in Jason Hickel’s response to Milanovic. I think it’s funny that he’s citing a World Bank economist for a major chunk of his article given that the World Bank’s position is that we can grow our way out of global poverty (it’ll only take 200 more years!) and currently defines the threshold of extreme poverty at $770 per year, so it’s a little bit hard to take the argument that $5,500 is unacceptable (even if that were the degrowth position, which it is not) with a straight face.
I mean yeah, I agree of course. Capitalism is of course incapable of doing it sustainably, this is all too obvious. We need to take control of the machine.
Just take transportation as an example. There’s no need for everyone to be driving around in single occupancy vehicles when we could just have trains instead, I think everyone on this website would agree with that. It would reduce production overall, reduce GHG emissions, and improve everyone’s lives. But it would still require building more things (train tracks, trains, etc).
I don’t know what his opinions on veganism are but I can almost guarantee you he is not a vegan lol.
I’m gonna go with a thanks but no thanks on Austerity Ecology
It’s a fantastic book. But if you’re pro-degrowth you’ll absolutely hate everything he says.
Hard to see an alternative to degrowth when its opponents feel the need to write articles with the thesis “actually, extinction isn’t so bad”
Based on the review, it doesn’t seem like he has much of a handle on what proponents of degrowth are actually arguing. The idea isn’t to stop technological progress in its tracks, it’s to orient the economy away from emphasis on productivity per se to meet everyone’s needs at a lower resource intensity.
His argument is actually that the degrowthers don’t understand what their own position actually is:
That article doesn’t do anything to dispel my suspicions that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
The most egregious aspects of the article were addressed in Jason Hickel’s response to Milanovic. I think it’s funny that he’s citing a World Bank economist for a major chunk of his article given that the World Bank’s position is that we can grow our way out of global poverty (it’ll only take 200 more years!) and currently defines the threshold of extreme poverty at $770 per year, so it’s a little bit hard to take the argument that $5,500 is unacceptable (even if that were the degrowth position, which it is not) with a straight face.
As far as the argument for decoupling goes, the evidence is that to the extent that it’s happening, it isn’t fast enough.
deleted by creator
I mean yeah, I agree of course. Capitalism is of course incapable of doing it sustainably, this is all too obvious. We need to take control of the machine.
Just take transportation as an example. There’s no need for everyone to be driving around in single occupancy vehicles when we could just have trains instead, I think everyone on this website would agree with that. It would reduce production overall, reduce GHG emissions, and improve everyone’s lives. But it would still require building more things (train tracks, trains, etc).
I don’t know what his opinions on veganism are but I can almost guarantee you he is not a vegan lol.