@504DR @breadandcircuses @gerrymcgovern
I totally agree, but is is not me saying it, it is Science Direct, saying it.
I have found it again for you try adding 'Science Direct on degrowth'
to Google.
'ScienceDirect: Elsevier's premier platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature. Advance research and scholarship with the world's leading database of peer-reviewed, full-text scientific, technical and health literature'
Not wanting to crash the discussion, but this is not how academia works.
ScienceDirect doesn't say anything. It is the online platform of the publishing company Elsevier (this publisher is controversial for their abusive practices and profit-driven business model, but this is a discussion for another day).
The Journals of Elsevier publish articles of scientists. We scientists write what we believe we can prove with our data.
So, naturally, there are many different positions. Just because one (or ten) articles, especially of something so complex and ideologically driven as economics, comes to certain conclusions, this does not mean that this is the actual scientific consensus.
There are 1,647 results for the keyword "degrowth" and 649 results for "post-growth" (which is kind of a decaffeinated degrowth with a better branding because it sounds less radical).
There are many more articles advocating in favour of degrowth (and, interestingly also from many other disciplines such as sociology, ecology, agricultural science and many, many others, because these scientists see how bad the capitalist system is for the planet) than articles against.
But science is not a democratic system where the majority votes (of course, a little bit it does, as in all societies). But anyway, we still need to read several articles and then think for ourselves.
@lyndamerry484 @504DR @breadandcircuses @gerrymcgovern
Since you are interested in economics, I strongly suggest you to start reading the very nice textbook (the author is still in the writing process, currently the first three chapters are published, but expect something like a new chapter every two-three months).
Then, you will have a good foundation to evaluate critically the scientific publications around the topic.
#RegenerativeEconomics #SustainableEconomics #ResourceEconomics #Economy
How can our community be home to a thriving people, in a thriving place, while respecting the wellbeing of people worldwide and the health of the whole planet? This is the question at the heart of this Regenerative Economics course. Everyone participates in the economy, but the current design
PD: Here for example is an article that strongly advocates for degrowth and elaborates on monetary policy:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923002318
Also, after reading the article by Warlenius (2023) you referred to, I wanted to elaborate on what it really discusses:
The article is not about whether degrowth is a good idea or not.
Warlenius works on the very specific issue of decoupling of carbon emissions from GDP. This is a topic of debate, and Warlenius makes some interesting points. But in no case, this means that degrowth is unnecessary. Warlenius just believes stronger in the capacity of the economy to continue growing while decreasing strongly emissions. I see not much evidence so far, just a slight relative decoupling, but emissions are definitely not falling.
Anyway, Warlenius also treats only emissions. And climate change is only one of our problems, and not even necessarily the worst.
Warlenius' article doesn't include resource use, biodiversity, nutrient cycles, deforestation, pollution and other problems capitalism is causing.
Thus, even though capitalism *might* be able to cope with CO2 emissions (for which again, I don't see much evidence), we'll fall just down another cliff if we don't degrow.
Merry Christmas
Earthworm 🐌