Economic growth is a vague abstraction. If you zoom in a little and look at specific sectors, I don’t think anyone would say that the problem is that the US has too much public transit or too much...
Economic growth is a vague abstraction. If you zoom in a little and look at specific sectors, I don’t think anyone would say that the problem is that the US has too much public transit or too much housing, for example? Such arguments are even harder to make in poorer countries where there is obvious need everywhere.
There are people who argue that there is too much medicine. (I’m thinking of a radical argument I’ve read that the US could cut back on health care by half without affecting outcomes.) But that’s still too vague to think about. Where specifically is the waste, and how do we reduce it?
Finding wasteful things to cut back on is something everyone can agree on, but people will disagree on what counts as wasteful. That’s where the interesting debate is, about the specifics.
People might disagree in conversation, but there are some very obvious ones that we can pull hard numbers for. The things that are the most problematic are consumptive goods. Things you buy that...
People might disagree in conversation, but there are some very obvious ones that we can pull hard numbers for. The things that are the most problematic are consumptive goods. Things you buy that have very little utility or are designed to be disposable. We could, for example, work on reigning in the fashion industry, which is responsible for one tenth of the world's carbon emissions (I should mention that this is just an incredibly short overview that only touches environmental impacts but does not cover the bredth of human rights violations that the industry is responsible for). But that's just one thing that we could be improving upon. Every time I go into town to go shopping I see tables full of useless junk, and everyone I know has their homes full of it. My own house is filled with junk!
The article actually does have some examples as well that I think aren't too crazy:
Saito does propose a few concrete fixes: Ban private jets. Get rid of advertising for harmful goods and services, such as cosmetic surgery. Enact a four-day workweek. Encourage people to own one car, instead of two or three. Require shopping malls to close on Sundays, to cut down on the time available for excessive consumption. “These things won’t necessarily dismantle capitalism,” he said. “But it’s something we can do over the long term to transform our values and culture.”
Another thing that I think we should realize is that arguements about quality of life are very broken. I have seen a number of people pull out statistics that say that quality of life has been improving for everyone constantly, but to be perfectly frank, they're full of shit. They are using statistics to justify the status quo, and discredit people's actual lives. The fact of the matter is that quality of life can best be measured with how happy a person is, and happiness is the single most subjective thing there is. If we make legislation like this where people and markets are discouraged from consumption, people will be upset for a while. But then it will become normal and it won't be a big deal. I've seen this pattern with every single regulation ever.
To go into detail on these I suspect a full ban will not only never happen, but actively be problematic. There are better solutions for private jets than a full out ban. This is back to basic...
Saito does propose a few concrete fixes:
To go into detail on these
Ban private jets.
I suspect a full ban will not only never happen, but actively be problematic. There are better solutions for private jets than a full out ban.
Get rid of advertising for harmful goods and services, such as cosmetic surgery.
This is back to basic freedom of speech stuff. What do you consider harmful? Some people would argue anything that's not their religion or political spectrum. Further I don't think there's anything really wrong with cosmetic surgery in the right scenarios. I would fucking love if we went back to when lawyers and medical companies couldn't advertise anything anywhere, but at the same time I see nothing wrong with someone who has the extra cash to spend deciding that they've always had self confidence issues about some portion of their appearance and changing it if it's within their means.
Enact a four-day workweek.
This one is tricky. On the one hand I agree 100%, on the other there's an issue with global productivity mattering in how relevant your society, and it's cultural decisions, are. It's something that should probably occur over a long enough time frame, but I'm unsure how that positions countries vs economic powerhouses like China and India. It has often been argued, even if in mostly bad faith, that a common issue with European economics is that they're too lax on work and thus get out competed on the national stage, and this can lead to detrimental effects for the whole country. It's a very complicated line.
Encourage people to own one car, instead of two or three.
This really just comes down to proper public transport infrastructure. Remote work will also help with this, but the simple reality for a family is that 1 car is just not a feasible solution when you need to be at work and have a kid who needs to be at school but the bus lines are horrible.
Require shopping malls to close on Sundays, to cut down on the time available for excessive consumption.
This is bad at what it wants to do in like 80 different directions. First, what defines a mall, because whatever definition you come up with, everyone is going to be making whatever changes are necessary to not meet that definition. Second, all this is going to do is kick brick and mortar stores in the teeth. You know who has the money to handle being closed one day out of the week and stay open? Best buy, walmart, target, and all the other mega conglomerates i'm sure this person doesn't like. You know who doesn't? Every single smaller business, local chain, or mom and pop store. You are literally just going to drive up online sales on sunday, and drive alternative stores out of business until there's only large corps.
“These things won’t necessarily dismantle capitalism,” he said. “But it’s something we can do over the long term to transform our values and culture.”
I won't go too heavily into this, but I always roll my eyes when someone's goal is "dismantle capitalism" or something similar. Private economies with structured governmental services have been the success story of the last couple of centuries and aren't likely to go anywhere. It's obvious that countries like Denmark are wonderful, but that's mostly because they've done a good job of drawing the line on where to allow the private sector, and where to give control to the government (like you know, healthcare). They are still using capitalism, and using that word like it's the boogeyman is about as useless as the people who think socialism only means authoritarian control (which, ironically arguments like this one are why people arrive at such conclusions, because that's pretty much what they're arguing for. Benevolent Tyranny).
In regards to you "dismantle capitalism" comments, I kind of feel that you're on the same side as Saito. I get the impression that he's less about "communism now!" and more about getting us to the...
In regards to you "dismantle capitalism" comments, I kind of feel that you're on the same side as Saito. I get the impression that he's less about "communism now!" and more about getting us to the point where we're living in a more equitable and fair "community-based" society. Even if my impression is wrong, I don't think it's bad for him to be more extreme. I think that there always has to be a more extreme branch of people in order for any social movement to reach the goals of the more moderate crowd.
I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on private jets. I don't see what you mean by banning them being problematic.
I kinda find that hard to believe just given how your own description of "community based society" would easily fall under capitalism in several different implementations and thus not qualify for...
I kinda find that hard to believe just given how your own description of "community based society" would easily fall under capitalism in several different implementations and thus not qualify for Saito's goals.
Even if my impression is wrong, I don't think it's bad for him to be more extreme. I think that there always has to be a more extreme branch of people in order for any social movement to reach the goals of the more moderate crowd.
I personally have seen more extremists sabotage reasonable movements rather than accomplish anything. The majority of extremists I've interacted with are some combination of angry, ignorant, manipulative, or outright violent often with the goal of "being right" more than "making things better". Please realize that your argument not only gives a pass to movements you might agree with, but almost certainly movements you don't. "Oh its ok that they're extreme because they're helping us find a moderate goal" is really not something I will ever condone.
To be clear, its fine if you think im wrong on this, and Im not trying to come off as hostile, but I have very strong feelings on this issue because I think logic like this is what MANY dangerous groups use to justify their actions.
As for "community based society" because I think that's an interesting goal:
I feel like part of the issue with this belief is much the same as people pining for the "simpler times" of the 50s or whatever. Community based societies had lots and lots and lots of issues that I think are ignored or glossed over (as anyone who's lived in smaller towns or countries will gladly talk about), but quite simply put I'm not sure what quality of life such a hypothetical society can support given current populations in many capitalist nations. A lot of current growth comes from more people getting what they want when they want it, and for every time that's something like cosmetic surgery, it also goes for plenty of important things like food. The huge issue planned economies always run into is efficient distribution of resources, and waaaaay too often in history that has led to people starving to death while there was plenty to eat.
It doesn't have to be that extreme to feel like a major step backwards for most people. I suppose its such a wide definition I could easily be interpreting what you meant wrong. I'll say that my stance is a step towards more small businesses where possible rather than mass conglomerates, but even I acknowledge that things like big box stores sure seem to reduce to the same operation and it's hard to see where the competition could even be.
I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on private jets. I don't see what you mean by banning them being problematic.
Private jets are a weird one. Yes in some ideal world they wouldn't need to exist except for rare circumstances. In the global economy world, they make a lot of economics sense when you start getting people who need to handle lots and lots of small locations spread across vast distances. This is a huge issue for any multi state operation in the midwest, and one that's not even acknowledged or talked about where it matters most. Namely China, India, and arguably Russia, the majority of the population on the planet, and just so happen to span vast distances.
There are plenty of locations that someone might reasonably need to visit in a day or a week that you literally cannot fly directly to. You much more likely need to fly on a 737 or some such plane to airport X, then take a puddle hopper (also more dangerous) to airport Y. You may only be able to do this once a week.
As fun as it might be to imagine the worlds wealthiest stuck in a twin otter everywhere they want to go, small planes like that don't have the range, or often the ability, to cover the distances required.
Sure you could say "well then only the government gets them", but simply put you'll be vastly out-competed by the aforementioned countries that aren't worrying about their magnates jetting from place to place.
I would absolutely be for more limitations. Things like business use only with loss of ability to travel on private jet for anyone who gets audited violating that, or perhaps tax incentives for filling the plane with normal travelers when possible to help with the efficiency of the flight. Just do a lottery of specific known flyers in club X or whatever.
At the end of the day I see them as a popular topic because "how dare they cause so many problems", but a lot of those same people want a Taylor Swift concert in their city too, and turns out the more time you spend on the road the less time you have for the next gig. In total emissions it's not a major chunk of the whole, or at least that the US can affect, and it's almost always in "Private jets are x to y times as bad as normal flight!", which yeah...but that's because of the efficiency of moving 200 people vs 20.
Given we're really concerned about the total emissions, it probably doesn't matter at all if you suddenly ground every single private jet forever (10k-12k flights per day) and let commercial continue its rampant use (80k-110k flights per day).
If all the energy that was spent arguing about private jet flights was instead spent on getting us reasonable train infrastructure to eliminate a TON of commercial air travel, we'd see WAY more benefit and it could actually happen (not that trains are easy either but its by far the most bang for the buck and serves a whole bunch of needs at once rather than just artificially restricting one).
It is a bigger issue in countries that already have good public transport, as their commercial flight use is more necessary, but even then we've seen efforts to force more train use when it's equivalent to plane.
Ive been writing this post on and off over the course of a few hours, so im sure i dropped some lines of thought in there, but its been a very hectic week so im just going to throw this out there as is and hope it does a decent job of explaining my positions on the various subjects.
Edit:
I lied i had one more thing I wanted to mention on the private jet part. I would support some sort of "corporate carpool" line with tax incentives for participating entities. Figure out with all these companies where the hell all these regional walmart/amazon/bestbuy/whatever execs need to be and route out some "bus line" style flights so they can get where they need in a more efficient manner than each corp owning a personal fleet. You might have to share space with competitors sometimes, but I think you could get large groups of these kind of managers all at once and significantly cut into the needed private jet time.
There are companies that rich people use to share costs. It's called fractional jet ownership. I don't know if that ever extends to actually sharing a ride, though.
I would support some sort of "corporate carpool" line with tax incentives for participating entities.
There are companies that rich people use to share costs. It's called fractional jet ownership. I don't know if that ever extends to actually sharing a ride, though.
Right, this isn't done with just jets (yachts and beach front property are other popular items), and basically help subsidize the obscene costs of upkeep and what not by spreading it among a few...
Right, this isn't done with just jets (yachts and beach front property are other popular items), and basically help subsidize the obscene costs of upkeep and what not by spreading it among a few people.
To my knowledge there's no incentive to fill the plane though, so you're back to 3 people on an 8-20 seat plane going to one spot or something like that.
Airplanes are pretty heavily regulated and commercial aviation even more so, so I'm wondering if it would be against the rules somehow to blur the lines like that? I once did some training to get...
Airplanes are pretty heavily regulated and commercial aviation even more so, so I'm wondering if it would be against the rules somehow to blur the lines like that?
I once did some training to get a pilot's license (never finished). At that level, you can split the cost of the fuel with passengers, but that's it. They don't want people doing it as a for-profit business without being regulated more strictly.
There have been various attempts to create "air taxi" services but I don't think they've been very successful.
I think it's fair to say that, at least in the US and also somewhat worldwide, we've lost some habits of frugality. Historically, clothing was extremely expensive (huge amounts of manual labor) so...
I think it's fair to say that, at least in the US and also somewhat worldwide, we've lost some habits of frugality. Historically, clothing was extremely expensive (huge amounts of manual labor) so people (well, mostly women) would mend their family's clothing to make them last as long as possible.
Being frugal is a personal and cultural habit, but it also depends on a lot of unpaid labor at home. (And historically, on farms.)
Marxists won't like this. Well, actually, nobody will like this. But I think part of the solution is artificially raising costs with taxes.
In some cases it's pretty uncontroversial, like deposits for aluminum cans, or requiring stores to charge for bags. This could be extended. I'd like to see a tax and a minimum price per impression on online advertising.
The reason we need prices along with a cultural habit of frugality is that some decisions about whether a purchase is "worth it" are very personal. Like, in Manhattan, should you take a cab or walk? Well, is it a sunny day? How is your health? How tired are you? Are you bringing luggage? Does it have wheels? Are they good wheels or kind of crappy wheels?
Why will nobody like higher prices? Well, you've seen how people react to inflation. And it's rather disheartening to see higher tariffs on something you favor, like e-bikes. And of course, inequality means that some people bear the burden of higher prices more than others and have to make tougher tradeoffs.
Also, along with a habit of frugality, responding to climate change requires both growth (in some favored industries) and degrowth (in others). This is not a static thing - it requires people to respond to change.
I agree with you on all counts, but especially in regards to taxes. A carbon tax is a painfully obvious fix since it's inherently fair, internalizing the costs of producing goods and services. I...
I agree with you on all counts, but especially in regards to taxes. A carbon tax is a painfully obvious fix since it's inherently fair, internalizing the costs of producing goods and services.
I also think that a lot of other forms of regulations that governments are actively looking the other way on could help. Ending some of the worst practices in regards to factory animal farming would reduce production, and that would have a host of positive effects, both in terms of the environment and public health. People will be upset at first, but once again, people will get used to it.
In order to return to the days of mending clothes, you'd have to return to the days of mendable clothes. The cheap items that we're buying now are made of synthetic fabrics and are of shoddy...
In order to return to the days of mending clothes, you'd have to return to the days of mendable clothes. The cheap items that we're buying now are made of synthetic fabrics and are of shoddy quality and they often can't be repaired in the same way that clothes used to be able to. I try to keep clothes for as long as possible, and I do mend things where I can, but I find that the more recently I've bought something, the less likely I am to be able to mend it in a way that looks acceptable and restores the function of the garment.
You can get mendable clothes, they just cost more. I just picked up a linen jacket from a well known Japanese street ware brand - no synthetic material, hand made in Japan. It cost $532, but...
You can get mendable clothes, they just cost more. I just picked up a linen jacket from a well known Japanese street ware brand - no synthetic material, hand made in Japan. It cost $532, but that’s what it takes for quality. As long as I wear it often enough the cost will amortize out.
People use to spend >20% of their annual income on clothes. That you can get by now with usable clothes and barely a blip on your finances is a modern thing.
Not necessarily a solution but last year I had the realisation that I’ve never thrown out an umbrella because it was damaged or broken… ever. And yet I’ve still been buying umbrellas, but don’t...
Not necessarily a solution but last year I had the realisation that I’ve never thrown out an umbrella because it was damaged or broken… ever. And yet I’ve still been buying umbrellas, but don’t have some enormous pile of them at home. This tells me that I only ever lose them or leave them behind somewhere.
I took the opportunity to buy a much more expensive umbrella than I usually get, which comes with all kinds of engineering features and warranty promises, and I also bought an AirTag (gps tracker) to attach to it. This way, if I ever leave it behind, my phone automatically notifies me that I’ve left it somewhere, and can show me the location on a map so I can track it down later.
I just figure the combination of “too expensive to lose” and a GPS tracker might work for your situation too, maybe
Thanks! Actually, I have gotten better at not losing things, with only occasional lapses. And my wife has some AirTags but I haven't decided how to use them yet.
Thanks! Actually, I have gotten better at not losing things, with only occasional lapses. And my wife has some AirTags but I haven't decided how to use them yet.
Mending is nice and all, but I think we as a society could do way better by just using clothing for longer. I see and hear about people who get rid of clothes after weeks or months. If you are...
Mending is nice and all, but I think we as a society could do way better by just using clothing for longer. I see and hear about people who get rid of clothes after weeks or months. If you are buying quality clothes, there is no reason it shouldn’t last many years, even without mending. Of all the clothes that have fallen apart for me, I don’t think any of them would be mendable, even if built in a “mendable” way.
Really we should be doing both, but this is a pretty effective first step. IIRC something like 1/3 of all clothing articles are disposed of without being sold. The nature of fashion itself is a...
Really we should be doing both, but this is a pretty effective first step. IIRC something like 1/3 of all clothing articles are disposed of without being sold. The nature of fashion itself is a big part of the problem.
I do still have some clothes that I got as hand-me-downs from my older sisters in the late 90's, and I buy most of my new clothes from the thrift store, but I won't lie that I have a weakness for...
I do still have some clothes that I got as hand-me-downs from my older sisters in the late 90's, and I buy most of my new clothes from the thrift store, but I won't lie that I have a weakness for maybe buying too much of it. At least it ends up in my closet or back at the thrift store instead of in a landfill.
Perhaps it's just the barrier of online text communication, but this sounds borderline insane to me. Happiness is quite often uncorrelated with what we consider objective markers of wellbeing, but...
Exemplary
Another thing that I think we should realize is that arguements about quality of life are very broken. I have seen a number of people pull out statistics that say that quality of life has been improving for everyone constantly, but to be perfectly frank, they're full of shit. They are using statistics to justify the status quo, and discredit people's actual lives. The fact of the matter is that quality of life can best be measured with how happy a person is, and happiness is the single most subjective thing there is.
Perhaps it's just the barrier of online text communication, but this sounds borderline insane to me.
Happiness is quite often uncorrelated with what we consider objective markers of wellbeing, but if you try to take this as a goal and try to solve it politically, I cannot imagine a situation in which you will end up in a good place. There are rural populations with nonexistent healthcare or education happier than the average American. Often times people are unhappy not because their own life is not good enough but because they're constantly exposed to the fact that other people's lives are better - and this is not just related to meaningless consumption of products and services. There are also famous dystopian books about trying to achieve overall happiness in society.
Arguably, happiness is more dependent on the overall mindset of the society than on external factors. You cannot directly try to achieve that goal without a ridiculous level social engineering, which rarely works and inevitably comes with huge side effects. You can fight for the individual's freedom to achieve happiness, but fighting for happiness of society itself is in my opinion a road to hell.
If we make legislation like this where people and markets are discouraged from consumption, people will be upset for a while. But then it will become normal and it won't be a big deal. I've seen this pattern with every single regulation ever.
I don't have the time to actually look through historical examples and do a statistic, but I really wonder if this is really what would happen. Implementing degrowth would immediately and very visibly reduce the living standards (whether perceived or real) of most of the society, because that is what reducing consumption is, and as always, these changes affect the middle and lower classes more than the wealthy.
Regulations like that usually do not go down well even if they stay. One clear example as a counter-argument: the reforms of Margaret Thatcher and her as a person are widely hated in the UK to this day. That is despite the fact that she was implementing (brutal) solutions to problems that were real and over time would likely lead to deeper and certainly longer issues than what her "ripping off the band-aid" caused, and that she did at least attempt to soften the blow in many ways. The reforms were not reverted because it made zero economical sense to do so, but the Brits were very careful to not let anything like that happen again. It is unquestionably still a big deal 40 years later.
Perhaps doing the changes gradually, using the "salami method" of incremental changes not big enough to cause uproar, would be viable. But if you need to manipulate society in this way, something is very wrong.
It could be either way. I feel that the way the world is going and the lack of appropriate action by government is making me deranged. I am not saying the government should be aiming for directly...
It could be either way. I feel that the way the world is going and the lack of appropriate action by government is making me deranged.
I am not saying the government should be aiming for directly making people happy. “Happiness” in this case refers to the general climate, and only part of it is political. We need improvements both in and out of government.
I am saying that the government should do a better job of enacting the will of the people. Right now there is a huge inequality in both wealth and power. Many of the benefits brought to people of the US by labor unions and social movements in the early 20th century have been turned back. I think 100 years from now we will look back at this period as a second gilded age.
Fascinating. His ideas are so radical, they make Bernie Sanders look like a right wing conservative fanatic. Many of us would agree to this even if most will find his ideas "too radical". If those...
Fascinating. His ideas are so radical, they make Bernie Sanders look like a right wing conservative fanatic.
He calls individual actions like using a thermos instead of plastic water bottles “meaningless,” and mocks the UN Sustainable Development Goals, dismissing them and other market-friendly solutions as “the opiate of the masses.”
Many of us would agree to this even if most will find his ideas "too radical".
For Saito, the long-term alternative to degrowth communism is not green growth but “climate fascism,” in which countries lock down, hoard their resources, and disregard the collective good.
If those really are the only choices, I think America would hands down to with climate fascism. Become this ultra protectionist, biggest guns Mad Max overlord that occasionally send out military fleets to rob what remains from other smaller countries.
He cites the statistic popularized by the Harvard political scientist Erica Chenoweth that it only takes 3.5 percent of the population protesting to enact change.
Perhaps for things like "we want a new park bench" or "don't raise bus fare by $0.01." The percentage required for change goes up steeply when the demand rubs against more military might and more authoritatively held ideals. See Hong Kong protests 2019: two million of the 7 million residents came out to march, but the government is backed by the army of 1.4 Billion people, so.
It'll take far more than 50% to topple the god of Capitalism.
I do believe it's important for someone to keep pushing the ultra radical ideology though, especially something that actually makes a ton of sense and will more readily aid our survival than capitalism. But these ideas have to be embraced and acted upon from grassroots and individual levels before wider political acceptance can be a reality. These would be nightmare policies if mandated ruthlessly, but they will usher in heaven on earth if we can choose to collectively live in them.
Yeah, if anything we've taken the correlation of economic growth - progress as a society too far and often assume they're directly causally related. Which is not true - economic growth through...
I do believe it's important for someone to keep pushing the ultra radical ideology though, especially something that actually makes a ton of sense and will more readily aid our survival than capitalism. But these ideas have to be embraced and acted upon from grassroots and individual levels before wider political acceptance can be a reality. These would be nightmare policies if mandated ruthlessly, but they will usher in heaven on earth if we can choose to collectively live in them.
Yeah, if anything we've taken the correlation of economic growth - progress as a society too far and often assume they're directly causally related. Which is not true - economic growth through increased tobacco consumption is a strong negative in society in many ways.
I disagree with most of the ideas, but they're interesting ideas to think about, and to reflect upon things we've taken for granted the past few decades.
You can stop reading right there. This will never happen. Not only will it never happen, none of the constituent ideas on their own will ever happen. An accurate take: Sums up the situation well...
economically dubious and politically impossible
You can stop reading right there. This will never happen. Not only will it never happen, none of the constituent ideas on their own will ever happen.
An accurate take:
“At bottom it’s not actually an evidence-based agenda,” Ted Nordhaus, the founder and executive director of the Breakthrough Institute and self-described “eco-modernist,” told me. “It’s sort of a worldview and a vibe.”
Sums up the situation well at the end:
At the end of our dinner, Saito told me he’s working on his next book, about the role of government when it comes to implementing degrowth. “The state has to intervene, but how can we make a democratic transition?” he asked rhetorically. I asked if he had an answer. He said, “Not yet.”
Because there is no conceivable way this plan can be implemented without blood in the streets and totalitarian control. There is no democratic path.
I find people bringing up imagined violence whenever someone brings up anything vaguely communist of socialist is a great way to stop any and all conversation about it. It's incredibly unhelpful....
I find people bringing up imagined violence whenever someone brings up anything vaguely communist of socialist is a great way to stop any and all conversation about it. It's incredibly unhelpful.
There is a democratic path. It's called changing people's minds. The first step to doing so is to take the ideas at hand seriously and not just dismiss them by literally telling people to stop reading before the end of the first sentence of the article.
I disagree. There is no democratic path, because these ideas are not going to be accepted by most people. They are absolutely politically impossible. I read the entire article -- there are no new...
I disagree. There is no democratic path, because these ideas are not going to be accepted by most people. They are absolutely politically impossible. I read the entire article -- there are no new serious ideas in it, just a ridiculous fantasy.
Ok, we'll count you out. Thanks for your input of "This is impossible and these ideas will not be accepted by most people." Your dismissal has been noted. If you'd like to critique individual...
Ok, we'll count you out. Thanks for your input of "This is impossible and these ideas will not be accepted by most people." Your dismissal has been noted.
If you'd like to critique individual ideas, I'd be happy to discuss them, but it's hard to actually have anything to say in response to a stance of "this is all ludicrous and won't go anywhere," even if you're right.
I don't really need to provide much critique. The article itself does, and in exactly zero cases does Saito provide an answer. This is the main issue, in his own words:
I don't really need to provide much critique. The article itself does, and in exactly zero cases does Saito provide an answer. This is the main issue, in his own words:
He emphasized that his ideas aren’t designed with realism in mind. “I’m not an activist,” he said. “I’m a scholar.” His job is to provide the theory behind the change. Making it work is up to others.
I certainly agree that these ideas aren't politically viable given the current zeitgeist, but it's a pretty bold claim to say that they are politically impossible implying that there could never...
I certainly agree that these ideas aren't politically viable given the current zeitgeist, but it's a pretty bold claim to say that they are politically impossible implying that there could never be any changing of minds. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I wonder how many people said the same thing of other social movements in the past? Throughout history there are instances where it's hard for many people to imagine changes to the status quo when we are deeply enmeshed in it like water is to a fish. This is most certainly true today as well.
All that to say - we don't know what the future holds for our climate or our resources and I can imagine certain contexts where people's mind will have to change to adapt to their situation.
I don't think it's bold. We have tried communism plenty of times -- this is even less reasonable than communism. Everything in this plan is unacceptable to the majority of people, and because of...
I don't think it's bold. We have tried communism plenty of times -- this is even less reasonable than communism. Everything in this plan is unacceptable to the majority of people, and because of human nature and its desire among the vast majority of people to have things, will never be acceptable. This whole plan fails because of the same reason that communism fails -- it takes the position of radical outliers in the human population and assumes that everyone else is secretly one of them, if they would only realize it.
There are plenty of ideas in the article. You are the one who is refusing to take them seriously. You could have just as easily made the same arguments about gay rights in the 80s and 90s, yet...
There are plenty of ideas in the article. You are the one who is refusing to take them seriously. You could have just as easily made the same arguments about gay rights in the 80s and 90s, yet here we are today.
This guy is literally a self-identified ecofascist though. Like, he himself uses the term "fascist". So I'm not particularly convinced he would agree with you that his goals can be accomplished...
This guy is literally a self-identified ecofascist though. Like, he himself uses the term "fascist". So I'm not particularly convinced he would agree with you that his goals can be accomplished democratically.
Are you referring to Saito? Because I only saw him bring up eco fascism in the context of it being the other likely outcome besides degrowth communism, not that he was advocating for it.
Are you referring to Saito? Because I only saw him bring up eco fascism in the context of it being the other likely outcome besides degrowth communism, not that he was advocating for it.
Economic growth is a vague abstraction. If you zoom in a little and look at specific sectors, I don’t think anyone would say that the problem is that the US has too much public transit or too much housing, for example? Such arguments are even harder to make in poorer countries where there is obvious need everywhere.
There are people who argue that there is too much medicine. (I’m thinking of a radical argument I’ve read that the US could cut back on health care by half without affecting outcomes.) But that’s still too vague to think about. Where specifically is the waste, and how do we reduce it?
Finding wasteful things to cut back on is something everyone can agree on, but people will disagree on what counts as wasteful. That’s where the interesting debate is, about the specifics.
People might disagree in conversation, but there are some very obvious ones that we can pull hard numbers for. The things that are the most problematic are consumptive goods. Things you buy that have very little utility or are designed to be disposable. We could, for example, work on reigning in the fashion industry, which is responsible for one tenth of the world's carbon emissions (I should mention that this is just an incredibly short overview that only touches environmental impacts but does not cover the bredth of human rights violations that the industry is responsible for). But that's just one thing that we could be improving upon. Every time I go into town to go shopping I see tables full of useless junk, and everyone I know has their homes full of it. My own house is filled with junk!
The article actually does have some examples as well that I think aren't too crazy:
Another thing that I think we should realize is that arguements about quality of life are very broken. I have seen a number of people pull out statistics that say that quality of life has been improving for everyone constantly, but to be perfectly frank, they're full of shit. They are using statistics to justify the status quo, and discredit people's actual lives. The fact of the matter is that quality of life can best be measured with how happy a person is, and happiness is the single most subjective thing there is. If we make legislation like this where people and markets are discouraged from consumption, people will be upset for a while. But then it will become normal and it won't be a big deal. I've seen this pattern with every single regulation ever.
To go into detail on these
I suspect a full ban will not only never happen, but actively be problematic. There are better solutions for private jets than a full out ban.
This is back to basic freedom of speech stuff. What do you consider harmful? Some people would argue anything that's not their religion or political spectrum. Further I don't think there's anything really wrong with cosmetic surgery in the right scenarios. I would fucking love if we went back to when lawyers and medical companies couldn't advertise anything anywhere, but at the same time I see nothing wrong with someone who has the extra cash to spend deciding that they've always had self confidence issues about some portion of their appearance and changing it if it's within their means.
This one is tricky. On the one hand I agree 100%, on the other there's an issue with global productivity mattering in how relevant your society, and it's cultural decisions, are. It's something that should probably occur over a long enough time frame, but I'm unsure how that positions countries vs economic powerhouses like China and India. It has often been argued, even if in mostly bad faith, that a common issue with European economics is that they're too lax on work and thus get out competed on the national stage, and this can lead to detrimental effects for the whole country. It's a very complicated line.
This really just comes down to proper public transport infrastructure. Remote work will also help with this, but the simple reality for a family is that 1 car is just not a feasible solution when you need to be at work and have a kid who needs to be at school but the bus lines are horrible.
This is bad at what it wants to do in like 80 different directions. First, what defines a mall, because whatever definition you come up with, everyone is going to be making whatever changes are necessary to not meet that definition. Second, all this is going to do is kick brick and mortar stores in the teeth. You know who has the money to handle being closed one day out of the week and stay open? Best buy, walmart, target, and all the other mega conglomerates i'm sure this person doesn't like. You know who doesn't? Every single smaller business, local chain, or mom and pop store. You are literally just going to drive up online sales on sunday, and drive alternative stores out of business until there's only large corps.
I won't go too heavily into this, but I always roll my eyes when someone's goal is "dismantle capitalism" or something similar. Private economies with structured governmental services have been the success story of the last couple of centuries and aren't likely to go anywhere. It's obvious that countries like Denmark are wonderful, but that's mostly because they've done a good job of drawing the line on where to allow the private sector, and where to give control to the government (like you know, healthcare). They are still using capitalism, and using that word like it's the boogeyman is about as useless as the people who think socialism only means authoritarian control (which, ironically arguments like this one are why people arrive at such conclusions, because that's pretty much what they're arguing for. Benevolent Tyranny).
In regards to you "dismantle capitalism" comments, I kind of feel that you're on the same side as Saito. I get the impression that he's less about "communism now!" and more about getting us to the point where we're living in a more equitable and fair "community-based" society. Even if my impression is wrong, I don't think it's bad for him to be more extreme. I think that there always has to be a more extreme branch of people in order for any social movement to reach the goals of the more moderate crowd.
I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on private jets. I don't see what you mean by banning them being problematic.
I kinda find that hard to believe just given how your own description of "community based society" would easily fall under capitalism in several different implementations and thus not qualify for Saito's goals.
I personally have seen more extremists sabotage reasonable movements rather than accomplish anything. The majority of extremists I've interacted with are some combination of angry, ignorant, manipulative, or outright violent often with the goal of "being right" more than "making things better". Please realize that your argument not only gives a pass to movements you might agree with, but almost certainly movements you don't. "Oh its ok that they're extreme because they're helping us find a moderate goal" is really not something I will ever condone.
To be clear, its fine if you think im wrong on this, and Im not trying to come off as hostile, but I have very strong feelings on this issue because I think logic like this is what MANY dangerous groups use to justify their actions.
As for "community based society" because I think that's an interesting goal:
I feel like part of the issue with this belief is much the same as people pining for the "simpler times" of the 50s or whatever. Community based societies had lots and lots and lots of issues that I think are ignored or glossed over (as anyone who's lived in smaller towns or countries will gladly talk about), but quite simply put I'm not sure what quality of life such a hypothetical society can support given current populations in many capitalist nations. A lot of current growth comes from more people getting what they want when they want it, and for every time that's something like cosmetic surgery, it also goes for plenty of important things like food. The huge issue planned economies always run into is efficient distribution of resources, and waaaaay too often in history that has led to people starving to death while there was plenty to eat.
It doesn't have to be that extreme to feel like a major step backwards for most people. I suppose its such a wide definition I could easily be interpreting what you meant wrong. I'll say that my stance is a step towards more small businesses where possible rather than mass conglomerates, but even I acknowledge that things like big box stores sure seem to reduce to the same operation and it's hard to see where the competition could even be.
Private jets are a weird one. Yes in some ideal world they wouldn't need to exist except for rare circumstances. In the global economy world, they make a lot of economics sense when you start getting people who need to handle lots and lots of small locations spread across vast distances. This is a huge issue for any multi state operation in the midwest, and one that's not even acknowledged or talked about where it matters most. Namely China, India, and arguably Russia, the majority of the population on the planet, and just so happen to span vast distances.
There are plenty of locations that someone might reasonably need to visit in a day or a week that you literally cannot fly directly to. You much more likely need to fly on a 737 or some such plane to airport X, then take a puddle hopper (also more dangerous) to airport Y. You may only be able to do this once a week.
As fun as it might be to imagine the worlds wealthiest stuck in a twin otter everywhere they want to go, small planes like that don't have the range, or often the ability, to cover the distances required.
Sure you could say "well then only the government gets them", but simply put you'll be vastly out-competed by the aforementioned countries that aren't worrying about their magnates jetting from place to place.
I would absolutely be for more limitations. Things like business use only with loss of ability to travel on private jet for anyone who gets audited violating that, or perhaps tax incentives for filling the plane with normal travelers when possible to help with the efficiency of the flight. Just do a lottery of specific known flyers in club X or whatever.
At the end of the day I see them as a popular topic because "how dare they cause so many problems", but a lot of those same people want a Taylor Swift concert in their city too, and turns out the more time you spend on the road the less time you have for the next gig. In total emissions it's not a major chunk of the whole, or at least that the US can affect, and it's almost always in "Private jets are x to y times as bad as normal flight!", which yeah...but that's because of the efficiency of moving 200 people vs 20.
Given we're really concerned about the total emissions, it probably doesn't matter at all if you suddenly ground every single private jet forever (10k-12k flights per day) and let commercial continue its rampant use (80k-110k flights per day).
If all the energy that was spent arguing about private jet flights was instead spent on getting us reasonable train infrastructure to eliminate a TON of commercial air travel, we'd see WAY more benefit and it could actually happen (not that trains are easy either but its by far the most bang for the buck and serves a whole bunch of needs at once rather than just artificially restricting one).
It is a bigger issue in countries that already have good public transport, as their commercial flight use is more necessary, but even then we've seen efforts to force more train use when it's equivalent to plane.
Ive been writing this post on and off over the course of a few hours, so im sure i dropped some lines of thought in there, but its been a very hectic week so im just going to throw this out there as is and hope it does a decent job of explaining my positions on the various subjects.
Edit:
I lied i had one more thing I wanted to mention on the private jet part. I would support some sort of "corporate carpool" line with tax incentives for participating entities. Figure out with all these companies where the hell all these regional walmart/amazon/bestbuy/whatever execs need to be and route out some "bus line" style flights so they can get where they need in a more efficient manner than each corp owning a personal fleet. You might have to share space with competitors sometimes, but I think you could get large groups of these kind of managers all at once and significantly cut into the needed private jet time.
There are companies that rich people use to share costs. It's called fractional jet ownership. I don't know if that ever extends to actually sharing a ride, though.
Right, this isn't done with just jets (yachts and beach front property are other popular items), and basically help subsidize the obscene costs of upkeep and what not by spreading it among a few people.
To my knowledge there's no incentive to fill the plane though, so you're back to 3 people on an 8-20 seat plane going to one spot or something like that.
Airplanes are pretty heavily regulated and commercial aviation even more so, so I'm wondering if it would be against the rules somehow to blur the lines like that?
I once did some training to get a pilot's license (never finished). At that level, you can split the cost of the fuel with passengers, but that's it. They don't want people doing it as a for-profit business without being regulated more strictly.
There have been various attempts to create "air taxi" services but I don't think they've been very successful.
I think it's fair to say that, at least in the US and also somewhat worldwide, we've lost some habits of frugality. Historically, clothing was extremely expensive (huge amounts of manual labor) so people (well, mostly women) would mend their family's clothing to make them last as long as possible.
Being frugal is a personal and cultural habit, but it also depends on a lot of unpaid labor at home. (And historically, on farms.)
Marxists won't like this. Well, actually, nobody will like this. But I think part of the solution is artificially raising costs with taxes.
In some cases it's pretty uncontroversial, like deposits for aluminum cans, or requiring stores to charge for bags. This could be extended. I'd like to see a tax and a minimum price per impression on online advertising.
The reason we need prices along with a cultural habit of frugality is that some decisions about whether a purchase is "worth it" are very personal. Like, in Manhattan, should you take a cab or walk? Well, is it a sunny day? How is your health? How tired are you? Are you bringing luggage? Does it have wheels? Are they good wheels or kind of crappy wheels?
Why will nobody like higher prices? Well, you've seen how people react to inflation. And it's rather disheartening to see higher tariffs on something you favor, like e-bikes. And of course, inequality means that some people bear the burden of higher prices more than others and have to make tougher tradeoffs.
Also, along with a habit of frugality, responding to climate change requires both growth (in some favored industries) and degrowth (in others). This is not a static thing - it requires people to respond to change.
I agree with you on all counts, but especially in regards to taxes. A carbon tax is a painfully obvious fix since it's inherently fair, internalizing the costs of producing goods and services.
I also think that a lot of other forms of regulations that governments are actively looking the other way on could help. Ending some of the worst practices in regards to factory animal farming would reduce production, and that would have a host of positive effects, both in terms of the environment and public health. People will be upset at first, but once again, people will get used to it.
In order to return to the days of mending clothes, you'd have to return to the days of mendable clothes. The cheap items that we're buying now are made of synthetic fabrics and are of shoddy quality and they often can't be repaired in the same way that clothes used to be able to. I try to keep clothes for as long as possible, and I do mend things where I can, but I find that the more recently I've bought something, the less likely I am to be able to mend it in a way that looks acceptable and restores the function of the garment.
You can get mendable clothes, they just cost more. I just picked up a linen jacket from a well known Japanese street ware brand - no synthetic material, hand made in Japan. It cost $532, but that’s what it takes for quality. As long as I wear it often enough the cost will amortize out.
People use to spend >20% of their annual income on clothes. That you can get by now with usable clothes and barely a blip on your finances is a modern thing.
I’ve lost too many jackets to think that’s going to pay off.
Not necessarily a solution but last year I had the realisation that I’ve never thrown out an umbrella because it was damaged or broken… ever. And yet I’ve still been buying umbrellas, but don’t have some enormous pile of them at home. This tells me that I only ever lose them or leave them behind somewhere.
I took the opportunity to buy a much more expensive umbrella than I usually get, which comes with all kinds of engineering features and warranty promises, and I also bought an AirTag (gps tracker) to attach to it. This way, if I ever leave it behind, my phone automatically notifies me that I’ve left it somewhere, and can show me the location on a map so I can track it down later.
I just figure the combination of “too expensive to lose” and a GPS tracker might work for your situation too, maybe
Thanks! Actually, I have gotten better at not losing things, with only occasional lapses. And my wife has some AirTags but I haven't decided how to use them yet.
Mending is nice and all, but I think we as a society could do way better by just using clothing for longer. I see and hear about people who get rid of clothes after weeks or months. If you are buying quality clothes, there is no reason it shouldn’t last many years, even without mending. Of all the clothes that have fallen apart for me, I don’t think any of them would be mendable, even if built in a “mendable” way.
Really we should be doing both, but this is a pretty effective first step. IIRC something like 1/3 of all clothing articles are disposed of without being sold. The nature of fashion itself is a big part of the problem.
I do still have some clothes that I got as hand-me-downs from my older sisters in the late 90's, and I buy most of my new clothes from the thrift store, but I won't lie that I have a weakness for maybe buying too much of it. At least it ends up in my closet or back at the thrift store instead of in a landfill.
Perhaps it's just the barrier of online text communication, but this sounds borderline insane to me.
Happiness is quite often uncorrelated with what we consider objective markers of wellbeing, but if you try to take this as a goal and try to solve it politically, I cannot imagine a situation in which you will end up in a good place. There are rural populations with nonexistent healthcare or education happier than the average American. Often times people are unhappy not because their own life is not good enough but because they're constantly exposed to the fact that other people's lives are better - and this is not just related to meaningless consumption of products and services. There are also famous dystopian books about trying to achieve overall happiness in society.
Arguably, happiness is more dependent on the overall mindset of the society than on external factors. You cannot directly try to achieve that goal without a ridiculous level social engineering, which rarely works and inevitably comes with huge side effects. You can fight for the individual's freedom to achieve happiness, but fighting for happiness of society itself is in my opinion a road to hell.
I don't have the time to actually look through historical examples and do a statistic, but I really wonder if this is really what would happen. Implementing degrowth would immediately and very visibly reduce the living standards (whether perceived or real) of most of the society, because that is what reducing consumption is, and as always, these changes affect the middle and lower classes more than the wealthy.
Regulations like that usually do not go down well even if they stay. One clear example as a counter-argument: the reforms of Margaret Thatcher and her as a person are widely hated in the UK to this day. That is despite the fact that she was implementing (brutal) solutions to problems that were real and over time would likely lead to deeper and certainly longer issues than what her "ripping off the band-aid" caused, and that she did at least attempt to soften the blow in many ways. The reforms were not reverted because it made zero economical sense to do so, but the Brits were very careful to not let anything like that happen again. It is unquestionably still a big deal 40 years later.
Perhaps doing the changes gradually, using the "salami method" of incremental changes not big enough to cause uproar, would be viable. But if you need to manipulate society in this way, something is very wrong.
It could be either way. I feel that the way the world is going and the lack of appropriate action by government is making me deranged.
I am not saying the government should be aiming for directly making people happy. “Happiness” in this case refers to the general climate, and only part of it is political. We need improvements both in and out of government.
I am saying that the government should do a better job of enacting the will of the people. Right now there is a huge inequality in both wealth and power. Many of the benefits brought to people of the US by labor unions and social movements in the early 20th century have been turned back. I think 100 years from now we will look back at this period as a second gilded age.
Fascinating. His ideas are so radical, they make Bernie Sanders look like a right wing conservative fanatic.
Many of us would agree to this even if most will find his ideas "too radical".
If those really are the only choices, I think America would hands down to with climate fascism. Become this ultra protectionist, biggest guns Mad Max overlord that occasionally send out military fleets to rob what remains from other smaller countries.
Perhaps for things like "we want a new park bench" or "don't raise bus fare by $0.01." The percentage required for change goes up steeply when the demand rubs against more military might and more authoritatively held ideals. See Hong Kong protests 2019: two million of the 7 million residents came out to march, but the government is backed by the army of 1.4 Billion people, so.
It'll take far more than 50% to topple the god of Capitalism.
I do believe it's important for someone to keep pushing the ultra radical ideology though, especially something that actually makes a ton of sense and will more readily aid our survival than capitalism. But these ideas have to be embraced and acted upon from grassroots and individual levels before wider political acceptance can be a reality. These would be nightmare policies if mandated ruthlessly, but they will usher in heaven on earth if we can choose to collectively live in them.
Yeah, if anything we've taken the correlation of economic growth - progress as a society too far and often assume they're directly causally related. Which is not true - economic growth through increased tobacco consumption is a strong negative in society in many ways.
I disagree with most of the ideas, but they're interesting ideas to think about, and to reflect upon things we've taken for granted the past few decades.
Archive.is link to this article.
You can stop reading right there. This will never happen. Not only will it never happen, none of the constituent ideas on their own will ever happen.
An accurate take:
Sums up the situation well at the end:
Because there is no conceivable way this plan can be implemented without blood in the streets and totalitarian control. There is no democratic path.
I find people bringing up imagined violence whenever someone brings up anything vaguely communist of socialist is a great way to stop any and all conversation about it. It's incredibly unhelpful.
There is a democratic path. It's called changing people's minds. The first step to doing so is to take the ideas at hand seriously and not just dismiss them by literally telling people to stop reading before the end of the first sentence of the article.
I disagree. There is no democratic path, because these ideas are not going to be accepted by most people. They are absolutely politically impossible. I read the entire article -- there are no new serious ideas in it, just a ridiculous fantasy.
Ok, we'll count you out. Thanks for your input of "This is impossible and these ideas will not be accepted by most people." Your dismissal has been noted.
If you'd like to critique individual ideas, I'd be happy to discuss them, but it's hard to actually have anything to say in response to a stance of "this is all ludicrous and won't go anywhere," even if you're right.
I don't really need to provide much critique. The article itself does, and in exactly zero cases does Saito provide an answer. This is the main issue, in his own words:
I certainly agree that these ideas aren't politically viable given the current zeitgeist, but it's a pretty bold claim to say that they are politically impossible implying that there could never be any changing of minds. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I wonder how many people said the same thing of other social movements in the past? Throughout history there are instances where it's hard for many people to imagine changes to the status quo when we are deeply enmeshed in it like water is to a fish. This is most certainly true today as well.
All that to say - we don't know what the future holds for our climate or our resources and I can imagine certain contexts where people's mind will have to change to adapt to their situation.
I don't think it's bold. We have tried communism plenty of times -- this is even less reasonable than communism. Everything in this plan is unacceptable to the majority of people, and because of human nature and its desire among the vast majority of people to have things, will never be acceptable. This whole plan fails because of the same reason that communism fails -- it takes the position of radical outliers in the human population and assumes that everyone else is secretly one of them, if they would only realize it.
There are plenty of ideas in the article. You are the one who is refusing to take them seriously. You could have just as easily made the same arguments about gay rights in the 80s and 90s, yet here we are today.
This guy is literally a self-identified ecofascist though. Like, he himself uses the term "fascist". So I'm not particularly convinced he would agree with you that his goals can be accomplished democratically.
Are you referring to Saito? Because I only saw him bring up eco fascism in the context of it being the other likely outcome besides degrowth communism, not that he was advocating for it.