The term "degrowth" is an asset, not a liability. "Trying to avoid provocation, or trying to be agnostic about growth, creates a milieu where problematic assumptions remain unidentified and unexamined in favour of polite conversation and agreement." ...
... "This is not an effective way to advance knowledge, especially when the stakes are so high." I make this argument here: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
It's easy to agree that we need to reduce resource use and bring the economy back into balance with the living world. The next step is to grapple with the fact that the underlying problem is the structural growth imperative of capitalism.
Yes, degrowth requires clarification for those who first encounter it. But so do all new terms, like universal basic income ("people will become lazy!"), job guarantee ("it's make-work!"), modern monetary theory ("Zimbabwe!"). This is how learning takes place.
Degrowth is not meant to describe some final alternative state. That's captured by terms like the doughnut, or ecosocialism, or regenerative economy, etc. Degrowth is a critique, a diagnosis, a prescription... it is the thing high-income nations need to do to restore the balance.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
