Today is Black Friday, a nonsensical ritual invented by for-profit businesses for the sole sake of moneymaking. By shopping today, you are willingly enriching a small class of business-owning super-polluters who bath in ecosystem-killing profits.
The top 10% richest humans own 76% of world wealth and generate 50% of all carbon emissions. The footprint of the world top 1% equals the one of the poorest 66% of humanity.
We are told that consuming forever more is part of human nature. Bullshit. The seemingly inescapable rat-race for positional prestige is constructed by an army of influencers, growth hackers, and ads designers. Read it again: the destruction of life on Earth is designed.
Buy more, be more, they say, even though we know that happiness through consumption is a scam. Work more to buy more, they say, which is in fact true since everything you purchase is paid in hours and minutes.
This is a tragic Ponzi scheme where you die at the end, realising that true wealth wasn’t in the bank account. This is the ultimate swindle where you realise your life has been wasted fulfilling a dream written in corporate Hollywood. Wake up.
The Good Life is not the one that maximises GDP. No one remembers who made the top-ten richest person list ten years ago. But we still remember hundred-year-old stories and symphonies; we still marvel at cathedrals and pyramids and cry for mounts and rivers.
History doesn’t give a shit about moneymaking. The fast-consumption encouraged by commercial propaganda is a fleeting distraction, one that is catastrophically costing us the habitability of the Earth.
The majority of us are emaciated on the treadmill of an elite wealth accumulation that burns the world. All these useless things we buy and these useless things we make bear the tragic loss of a life that could be so much richer if prosperity could speak its own language.
So, Fck ads. Six tiny letters to revive an electric critique of capitalist realism. Two words to empower us to dream bigger, to educate our desires for precious post-capitalist futures.
Small but beautiful. Slow yet delightful. There are radically different futures to be invented and it starts today.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Of course that's your contention. You're an economist who just heard about degrowth. You just got finished reading some quick-and-dirty critique – the latest piece in The Economist probably – and you’re convinced that degrowth is unnecessary because we can green growth.
You’re gonna be convinced of that ‘til next month when you read "Decoupling Debunked", then you’re going to admit that decoupling has never happened in the past but you’ll say that it could sure happen in the future.
That’s going to last until next year when you’ll be regurgitating Andrew McAfee, Sam Fankhauser, or Alessio Terzi about how price signals and technological progress can solve any environmental issue.
Summary of my talk at the #BeyondGrowth conference on the impossibility of green growth and the necessity of degrowth. 🧵
There is a rumour that is picking up speed in the media, affirming that it is possible to both produce more while polluting less. Some people call it “green growth.”
This rumour is not only a rumour, it is also a belief deeply embedded within our current environmental strategies. Problem: The idea of an economic growth fully decoupled from nature is scientifically baseless and it is distracting us from more effective transition strategies.
Degrowth as a transition from a growth economy to a post-growth economy.
An increase in production and consumption to grow profit for private owners by privatizing the benefits and socializing the losses in the spirit of enhancing well-being for the selected few.
A reduction of production and consumption to lighten the ecological footprints, planned democratically in a spirit of social justice while improving well-being.
Green growth is macroeconomic greenwashing. A summary of my response to @paulkrugman after his article on green growth in the @nytimes. 🧵
Arguing that economic growth can be greened by showing evidence of one single impact going down is like bragging about being healthy by showing that one of your arms has lost weight. Sustainability requires a reduction of many environmental pressures.
If you want to show that growth is genuinely green, you must bring evidence that GDP has decoupled from all environmental pressures. After five years actively searching for this particular proof, I have never seen anyone managing to do that.