Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:36 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: De-Growth Advocates Would Take Us Back To Harder Times Back to Topics
flyboyUT

Champion Author
Utah

Posts:27,327
Points:1,407,340
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:07:11 PM

This is one for the radical environmentalists out there.
.
.
No rational person seriously listens to this "stuff" but we have supposed educated people who advocate it. Makes you go hummmmmmmm doesnt it.
.
.
>>>What could be next in the environmentalists' catalog of crazy ideas to save the planet? Did someone say a return to 18th Century living? Whoever did would be right.

They call it "de-growth," but it would be better described as "insanity." The advocates of this plan want to literally "de-grow" the economy back to what they believe is a "sustainable" level.

"There's no such thing as sustainable growth, not in a country like the U.S.," Worldwatch senior fellow Erik Assadourian told Sierra Magazine. "We have to de-grow our economy, which is obviously not a popular stance to take in a culture that celebrates growth in all forms."

Someone should tell Mr. Assadourian there's a good reason why his stance is not a popular: People don't want to be poor and live shorter, unhealthier lives.<<<

Yep and unicorns and pixie dust will make it all better too.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,807
Points:386,995
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2014 11:48:47 AM

"The left simply doesn't care who goes hungry just so long as they are the ones in charge of what food remains."

--Absurd. Is there a mounting fear that the 1% won't have enough caviar?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,373
Points:1,766,095
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2014 10:59:31 AM

ej: "If you have population growth and regressive growth, more people go hungry."


The environment wackos are indeed crazy. The left simply doesn't care who goes hungry just so long as they are the ones in charge of what food remains.



mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 3/7/2014 11:00:07 AM EST]
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,259
Points:1,448,250
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2014 9:13:03 AM

I live & work almost every weekend in the summer with a bunch of Rennies & Pirates stuck in the 16th to 18th century...But we cheat a little.
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,721
Points:139,190
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2014 2:21:52 AM

These people are insane. They use abortion in an attempt to control population like a science fiction movie.

If population grows, then economic activity must too.

If you have population growth and regressive growth, more people go hungry.

The problem is that these nutty people think money is simply printed and handed out to people.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,373
Points:1,766,095
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 9:28:36 PM

Drill baby drill, or should I say frack baby frack!!



mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,807
Points:386,995
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 8:40:51 PM

President Carter gave this speech on April 18 1977. It was a time of gas hogs and inefficiency. Assassinations, the Vietnam War, Watergate and gas lines had left the nation edgy. The Cold War loomed and the nuclear threat was still something relatively new.

This is an excerpt.

"Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan, and Sweden.

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural [gas] to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.

If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price."

Carter was a pragmatist. He was simply preparing for the worst case scenario. Just because that didn't occur does not mean that it was wrong to be ready for it in case it did.

In a way he was ahead of his time. We made our cars more efficient and we built our homes with much more insulation. And we also did a lot of other things to embrace the conservation that he called for.

Tis nothing but armchair quarterbacking to sit here in 2014 and mock what President Carter did with what was known in 1977.
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:24,304
Points:648,045
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 6:31:48 PM



No, the "only" answer is to get government out of the way and turn the creativity of capitalists loose!

Capitalism has created the HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING and good in the history of the world.

And the liberal Luddites were predicting back in the '50s that we had no more oil and had to cut back.

The "brilliant" liberal Jimmy Carter loudly proclaimed in 1978 that within about 5 years there would be NO oil available at ANY PRICE!

Both were stunningly WRONG, as liberals ALWAYS are!

Capitalism and freedom have been the greatest good in the history of the world - other than Christianity!

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,807
Points:386,995
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 6:12:29 PM

No, the only answer is for this concept to be widely circulated among us adults and be made required course material in our schools.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,327
Points:1,407,340
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 5:13:12 PM

Well Steve I guess the only answer is for you to become Amish or something then. When are you going to convert and learn how to be a 18 century farmer?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,807
Points:386,995
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 4:03:53 PM

Well we don't have to worry about too many people having mansions and yachts because of the class war waged by the 1% against the 99%.

And while it would be great if everyone were to do this nothing says everyone should do it or be forced to do it.

Looks like more a matter of simply stating what is logical and letting people make up their own minds.

Call it the voice of reason.

I wonder which is higher?

The suicide rate of the whole USA or the suicide rate of the Amish?
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:14,990
Points:523,715
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 1:24:48 PM

As to the not forcing this on people, how else will you get everyone to do it if you don't force them?
You think people will just willingly give up their mansions and yachts?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,807
Points:386,995
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:48:16 PM

Didn't see anything in either article about 'forcing' people to do this. Looks to me like a sensible call for asking reasonable people to think about the cummulative effects of what we do.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,807
Points:386,995
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:46:30 PM

It is not possible for the whole world to live like the US. The planet lacks sufficient resources and nobody would want to deal with pollution and waste on such a massive scale.

And the atmosphere could not take it!

China recently surpassed the US in carbon emissions. And just look at their skies and the pollution there! Do we want the whole planet to look like Bejing?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,327
Points:1,407,340
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:44:21 PM

Steve you just dont seem to understand the thrust of the concept.

The radical environmentalist wants to force people to degrow to some level they think is ideal.

The logical thinking conservative already has a solar powered clothes dryer in their yard. The conservatives among us still do prefer to 'make their dinners from scratch' and dont eat out or eat processed food as often as the libs do.

The really big difference is we do it by choice based on what we freely choose to do while the ardent progressive liberal environmentalist wants to use the force of the government to place their boot on our necks and demand that we all conform to their ideas.

Huge difference there my friend. Freedom as espoused by conservatives or naked use of force by the govt as demanded by the progressives.....

By all means if you (as a representative of the back to 1800 living group) wish to have a clothesline do so. Its your choice and I wont attempt to force you either way. That is in contrast to what you apparently want to do to me (a representative of the enlightened peace and freedom movement). Snicker chuckle.....
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,373
Points:1,766,095
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:37:02 PM

This is where the left and the environmental wackos part company. For now they support each other because, even though they have different end goals, their game plans to reach their goals are identical at present. Both want capitalism reigned in and controlled. The environmental wackos want this because they believe it will "de-grow" the economy as the article indicated. The left wants this because the only method by which capitalism can be reigned in is through government control, which is their goal in the first place. The wackos want our technological society destroyed completely, while the left is willing to sacrifice some of our wealth and progress if that's the price necessary to put them in the driver's seat of what's left. The left doesn't want it all destroyed, because after all, if you are the absolute rulers of an agrarian society, you can't really enjoy the trappings of power since there really isn't much in the way of wealth to enjoy. Having the biggest teepee in the village just doesn't cut it.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,807
Points:386,995
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:33:28 PM

"Whether you move to a smaller house or an apartment, downsize to one or no car, or simply have fewer lattes to-go, a smaller paycheck could reduce consumption overall.

"If we had a livable wage and could each work a 20-hour week," Assadourian says, "we'd have time to choose more sustainable options that are also better for ourselves."

Maybe we'd even like it. We could cook dinner instead of unwrapping and microwaving it, Assadourian suggests, or hang laundry to dry, which would cut electricity use and let us spend time in the sun.

Anna Coote, head of social policy at the New Economics Foundation, argues that we should work less and use that time whittling away at a more joyful life. "Why do we work? What do we do with the money we earn?" she asks. "Can we begin to think differently about how much we need—to get out of the fast lane and live life at a more sustainable pace, to do things that are better for the planet, better for ourselves?"

Shorter workweeks could mean more time for psychologically gratifying pursuits such as gardening, reading, or biking.

Of course, most of us don't have the luxury of choosing to become enlightened minimalists. We'll likely need at least a higher minimum wage, healthcare that's not dependent on a 40-hour work week, and a more progressive income tax, Assadourian says."

Here's the actual source of the IBD razzed-up piece.

Hmmm. Working less? Having more time to pursue enjoyment of life? Feeling better about producing less waste? That sounds pretty good to me. Why ARE we killing ourselves in the rat race?
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:24,304
Points:648,045
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:29:20 PM



Sierra Club!

Now THERE is an unbiased site!

btw, SemiSteve.

Have you seen BuzzLOL's comments?

Do you still want to take me to task again like you did a few days ago when I questioned him? He seems like such a nice liberal, doesn't he?!

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,327
Points:1,407,340
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:25:20 PM

I suppose they are Steve. But the activity of a extremely small splinter minority has little overall effect unlike what radical environmentalists advocate.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,807
Points:386,995
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:25:18 PM

I found the actual source at the Sierra Club website. It's easy to see how IBD chose to cherry-pick from the full statement in order to support their slant. Here's the full statement:

"There's no such thing as sustainable growth, not in a country like the U.S.," Worldwatch senior fellow Erik Assadourian says. "We have to de-grow our economy, which is obviously not a popular stance to take in a culture that celebrates growth in all forms. But as the saying goes, if everyone consumed like Americans, we'd need four planets."

Four planets. That's how much we would consume if the US was in charge of the whole world. Good thing we are not, then, in that case. We are remarkably wasteful. Our economy is built on the throw-away mentality. Wall Street profits from planned obsolescence and the promotion of the disposable product lifestyle. And we do like to keep our landills out of sight, out of mind. I'm sure that helps Wall Street, too.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,807
Points:386,995
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2014 12:17:06 PM

I wonder if the Amish are happy with their lives?
Post a reply Back to Topics