Aside from the point that the term itself has a negative vibe (that can be fixed, it's called a rebrand), I feel most of the public is unaware of the concept of degrowth. One of the things degrowth calls for is the end of advertising, which is ironic since educating the public is fundamental as well as planning specific actions to carry out. It could offer, for instance, those manufacturing plastic junk for throwaway consumption to become workers in rewilding. I think many people could buy into working outdoors rather than a factory. I believe many would welcome losing the suffocating expense and hassle of a car, if excellent mass transit existed. Instead of construction workers building new, they could transition into retrofitting existing structures for efficiency. Degrowth could bring free time back to our live, so missing for most. How valuable is that? The benefits aside from avoiding outright disaster are numerous and sellable. The block of course is that those who profit most from the current system would lose money and power — which is exactly what needs to happen.
Whether it is called degrowth, destressed or simplification, it is a matter of getting off the consumerist carousel. It just makes you dizzy and ill.
On another note, who says economic growth is healthy or has to continue indefinitely? No economist can prove that GDP means anything important. As for love, it does not grow, it matures, like a tree or plant.
Something I return to again and again is this idea--"Forget what you're against; what are you for?" It's easier to stay motivated when I think about what I do want, than what I don't.
When reducing consumption is seen as sacrifice, it's not very popular. But when it can be seen as what you're gaining--ease, time, freedom, for example--who doesn't want that? The reframe you're writing about here is essential.
Re: co-option of terms, this is a pet peeve of mine with "sustainability"--a great idea that quickly got co-opted by greenwashing entities. It's been so co-opted, in fact, that I tend to view its use as suspect at the start.
In terms of more positive terminology, I think you're onto something with "easier"--maybe "easeful"? I can see we are also up against hyperproductivity culture when it comes to the demonization of words like "Easy"--so many layers to this. What brings me hope is that now I see a lot of people finding other ways of living with more ease. I think the pandemic helped a lot of people realize they would actually be happier with less.
BTW have you read "Laziness does not Exist" by Devon Price? It's a great primer on the "laziness lie"--where it originates, and how to deconstruct it in ourselves.
Here's one interesting tidbit. The folks who came up with the term "degrowth" called it a "missile word." In other words, they specifically looked for a term that was difficult to co-opt by capitalist forces. They wanted something that embodied an oppositional mindset in the term itself.
Love this! I have more to say after digestion but I completely agree that framing anything in the negative will not get any traction especially with those suffering.
Sold or not, degrowth will come to this Industrial civilisation in overshoot. Most likely involuntarily imposed on us by Mother Nature given how merrily coal plants are still being built and new oil field licenses are handed out like candies. Energy security is simply too important and no electorate will ever buy lower wages as an election motto after capitalism have spent the past decades brainwashing us into believing that consume + growth = good.
Aside from the point that the term itself has a negative vibe (that can be fixed, it's called a rebrand), I feel most of the public is unaware of the concept of degrowth. One of the things degrowth calls for is the end of advertising, which is ironic since educating the public is fundamental as well as planning specific actions to carry out. It could offer, for instance, those manufacturing plastic junk for throwaway consumption to become workers in rewilding. I think many people could buy into working outdoors rather than a factory. I believe many would welcome losing the suffocating expense and hassle of a car, if excellent mass transit existed. Instead of construction workers building new, they could transition into retrofitting existing structures for efficiency. Degrowth could bring free time back to our live, so missing for most. How valuable is that? The benefits aside from avoiding outright disaster are numerous and sellable. The block of course is that those who profit most from the current system would lose money and power — which is exactly what needs to happen.
Whether it is called degrowth, destressed or simplification, it is a matter of getting off the consumerist carousel. It just makes you dizzy and ill.
On another note, who says economic growth is healthy or has to continue indefinitely? No economist can prove that GDP means anything important. As for love, it does not grow, it matures, like a tree or plant.
Something I return to again and again is this idea--"Forget what you're against; what are you for?" It's easier to stay motivated when I think about what I do want, than what I don't.
When reducing consumption is seen as sacrifice, it's not very popular. But when it can be seen as what you're gaining--ease, time, freedom, for example--who doesn't want that? The reframe you're writing about here is essential.
Re: co-option of terms, this is a pet peeve of mine with "sustainability"--a great idea that quickly got co-opted by greenwashing entities. It's been so co-opted, in fact, that I tend to view its use as suspect at the start.
In terms of more positive terminology, I think you're onto something with "easier"--maybe "easeful"? I can see we are also up against hyperproductivity culture when it comes to the demonization of words like "Easy"--so many layers to this. What brings me hope is that now I see a lot of people finding other ways of living with more ease. I think the pandemic helped a lot of people realize they would actually be happier with less.
BTW have you read "Laziness does not Exist" by Devon Price? It's a great primer on the "laziness lie"--where it originates, and how to deconstruct it in ourselves.
Here's one interesting tidbit. The folks who came up with the term "degrowth" called it a "missile word." In other words, they specifically looked for a term that was difficult to co-opt by capitalist forces. They wanted something that embodied an oppositional mindset in the term itself.
Here's a paper supporting your perspective on the term: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915305516
Love this! I have more to say after digestion but I completely agree that framing anything in the negative will not get any traction especially with those suffering.
Sold or not, degrowth will come to this Industrial civilisation in overshoot. Most likely involuntarily imposed on us by Mother Nature given how merrily coal plants are still being built and new oil field licenses are handed out like candies. Energy security is simply too important and no electorate will ever buy lower wages as an election motto after capitalism have spent the past decades brainwashing us into believing that consume + growth = good.
"Unlimited growth" for its own sake is the political economic ideology of the cancer cell, to paraphrase Ed Abbey.
This was great, as usual. Looking forward to the Portland story in the next few weeks.