DEgrowth will only come from ecological calamity

or economic collapse.

Because until then, not enough people are willing to sacrifice to bring about degrowth.

Without common sacrifice, no sustainability. Period!

Mis-use and twist the meaning of words like 'sustainable' and 'green' all you want; again without sacrifice it is only postponing the inevitable collapse

about discretionary spending

if you want less consumption, let's put and end to all advertising!

Eva Morales gets it

Morales is right, "Either capitalism dies or Mother Earth dies."

But then I obviously would agree with him and the article.

Trying to end poverty, inequality and environmental destruction within a capitalist system is like expecting a hamster running in his wheel to actually get anywhere.

Sacrifice?

I don't agree that a sustainable environment necessarily means sacrifice for the ordinary person. It means sacrifice for the corporatists who would no longer look toward eternal growth and the end of billionaire megalomania.But a simpler life means a qualitatively better life - fewer but better and lasting products, less need to work to accumulate a lot of rubbish, more free time etc. I know because I have always lived that way and my ecological footprint is less than one Earth.

A simpler life means giving somethings up - sacrifice

For example: fast food

Sacrifice the jobs serving unhealthy food!

If you call that a

If you call that a sacrifice, freebear! Coupled with a sustainable, no growth economy is work sharing. We would simply reduce the work week to absorb the people who would lose their jobs from the abolition of harmful industries. At least half the economy is waste, so if you get rid of this, you could consider a 20 hour work week...

I am all for it anarcho....

but it involves everyone and most are sedated!

The Hoity Toitiers Amongst :"Progressives"

It's always easier and safer to attack the working class victims of course, than it is the big corporations, as some "progressives" even here prefer to do, behind a so-called green flag.

I agree with Anarcho here. The solution is simple from a working class perspective; job share the environmentally "good" jobs, and use the saved labour time to begin to really clean up the environment. As SharingIsGood so often serves to remind us here, it is indeed "sharing" that is the key to the "green" future, as we weed out the self-serving "wealth accumulation" obsessed from the social and economic garden.

Time some here, from seeming positions on moral and economic high, stopped looking down their self-righteous nose at the working class; especially its lower burger flipping orders. (Do you really think they are there because they want to be? Because they have a choice?"

"I don't agree that a sustainable environment necessarily means sacrifice for the ordinary person. It means sacrifice for the corporatists who would no longer look toward eternal growth and the end of billionaire megalomania" wrote anarcho.

I'm from the lower orders of the working class. Bring it on. And stop your self-righteous hoity toity, nose in the air bullshit, some of you "progressive" intellectual snobs.

Too Funny

This is really too funny, does anyone believe those on the right or the left will let go of that tiny little scrap of greed that exists in all of us?
I don't want to see a no growth economy. We would be replacing the word poverty for sustainability.
Its like saying the guys at the top will be walking like the rest of us instead of working on ways to have every one able to ride.
There has to be better causes to spend time and money on

Good article. I just hope

Good article. I just hope the degrowth movement will focus on the real driver of growth: money is created as interest-bearing debt. If that is not addressed then not much hope. Money reform is the answer.

50% increase in emissions in the next two decades

Nonsense; it is predicted that mankind will grow emissions over 50% in the next two decades, not because the most fortunate are dramatically increasing their carbon footprint, but because the least fortunate are catching up. Degrowth: tell that to the majority of humanity that are just now getting electricity.

"The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution." --Climate Resistance, 24 March 2008

damngrumpy

You don't want to see a no-growth economy? Then don't drive east or north of Hope.

Campbell has already reduced the provincial growth rate to well below what it was under the NDP in the 1990s. Just 2% to go and it'll be zero.

But seriously, capitalism has failed, we're still trying to fix problems it created it created over a century ago and having no success.

There is no wealth to be found to produce the wealth you want to see, the resources of the planet are not expanding, they're being reduced.

The future of a system on a finite planet where 90% of the wealth is taken off the top by the people who are already wealthy means massive inequality and instability.

If that's the future you want then fine, but some of us prefer to push for something positive and sustainable.

dobermanmacleod

Sounds like the "infinite growth forever" mantra that only a realtor could believe.

They Shoot Capitalists, Don't They?

I'm surprised the Tyee publishes such drivel- completely unsubstantiated rants from philosophers and professors on the govt payroll that don't make any sense in the real world.

The first block to pull from this socialist/Communist house of cards is: who gets to decide what is good or bad growth? Who decides what investments and inventions to stop in the name of bad growth? Will we set up a "People's Committee for Growth Decisions" staffed with social workers, unionists? Would we even have the internet with such policies? Who constitutes the so called rich that you wish to pillory?

I know Vancouver is the last bastion for romantic Communists in the developed world, but the insanity and impracticality of their ideas are simply astounding. While nations like China have shed Communism and are happy to run away from it, there's a determined group in Vancouver who romanticize it without bounds.

Ironically, it is the poor countries that pollute the most and creating wealth will not only lift them out of poverty, but reduce pollution.

Sure, capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the only system that has been able to adapt itself to calamity and spread wealth. The Communism you propose theoretically spreads wealth better, but doesn't work in the real world where everyone is not equal.

In the 60s and 70s, eco radicals thought there were limits to production and growth, but technology improved the means of production. The world didn't end. When Hern says, "..we talk about who gets degrowthed.." he really means dismantling companies that he doesn't think are politically correct and putting working folks into unemployment.

The future the degrowth-ers are implying is dismal, one of govt intrusion into not only your daily lives, but your hopes and dreams of a better life. Mortality rates would be higher because who would invent new medicines in this kind of grey world the degrowth-er's dream about? Because, their idea of a better life is a govt issued condo, car and plastic shoes. Aside from your political science friends down at the Kitsilano expresso bar, the working people are laughing at you.

Bobby peru

When did Chile "shed communism"? Was that in 1973 when your buddy Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected Allende?

Ya, I suppose you could call a military coup, "shedding", LOL

Frankly, Frank...

Frank, why don't you address my questions? They are valid. But, then I forgot, degrowth is political movement of utopian socialists who have no idea how to make it work in terms of policy and implementation in the real world. Or just answer the one most simple, basic question: Who do you define to be the "RICH"?

the physical world is asserting

its reality, whatever social games the shaved monkeys living in it wish to play will be wiped away soon enough. I'm still amused when one of them starts talking economics as part of the "real world" though.

How would I define" rich"? Anyone short-sighted and selfish enough who compounds their wilful ignorance with callous disregard to further the end of the human species by supporting and encouraging behaviour that fills the world with destructive luxury goods and has not even once donated to projects essential to our long term survival.

It's Just My Imagination

Takuan, I would like to think you are sincere, but you must be kidding when you toss in your definition of the "rich". What is and who gets to define a "destructive luxury good"? Would a Mac computer be one? Would a bicycle that's nicer than yours be one? You see, you can't make policies with your kind of indignant outrage against anyone who has more than you do.

Then, what is a "project essential to our long term survival"? Would working and supporting my family and keeping them off the homeless ranks count as long term survival?

It's well meaning, but naive voters like you who put our current mayor in office. He's into symbolism and grandstanding with meaningless slogans like 'the greenest city in the world.' Bee keeping and vegetable gardens at city hall do not count as meaningful policy making. You see, creating and implementing laws and policies that are practical, measurable and can truly help the entire population is more than a matter of touting left wing slogans. It's actually hard work, but our mayor and the people who want to foist degrowth on working families are only interested in protest and publicity.

Interesting theory, but not well thought out.

It would seem that a steady-state economy could not exist without a steady-state population.

We could all be equally and unchangingly rich or poor, and still grow ourselves into extinction.

Most likely no ideology will solve this biological problem, and the most well armed will survive longest.

Before degrowth comes

Before degrowth comes deprogramming. Until we get a grip on the thinking behind statements that frame arguments, like, “who gets to decide what is good or bad growth?” any effort, no matter how well intentioned, to reduce human destructiveness on this planet will succumb to “business as usual” distortional thinking. And folks will carry on believing judgement is reality: growth is good, more is better, communism bad, no “progress” without monetary/material reward …

The question isn’t about growth, it’s not really about good and bad, it’s about understanding the process we use to arrive at those judgements, and more importantly, being able to see how others have arrived at those judgements. And that’s all they are, judgements. They’re a product of the way we’ve been indoctirnated into our corner of society. Unfortunately no one wants to go there, it’s easier and less painful to fault and blame others for your behaviour … the loonie left, the religious right, captitalism, communism.

De-constructing society

To re-establish how 'we' decide things.

The New Woman/ Man...

"And that’s all they are, judgements. They’re a product of the way we’ve been indoctrinated into our corner of society. Unfortunately no one wants to go there, it’s easier and less painful to fault and blame others for your behaviour … the loonie left, the religious right, capitalism, communism." wrote KWD.

With which I agree in very many ways. As much as it may come as a surprise to some of you.

Capitalism is a problem and there is no solution without dealing with it, in my view, but there really is a sense in which it is but a manifestation of a much deeper problem, likely arising from the history and the way in which we humans have evolved to here.

I see it in horses as well. They too are a herd animal, and display the herd cooperation and "caring" instincts we do as well... BUT, when it comes to "survival", any one of the herd will be left to deal with their own fate, in the flight from threat instinct similarly rooted in them, as humans, along with the hierarchical structure. In short, it is a common evolutionary phenomena being bucked here.

The old anarchist and communist literature used to emphasize the importance of, and speak to the need for the emergence of a "new man" before a full break with the "classist" past in which capitalism is as well rooted, was possible and could fully develop. It was later much forgotten or only formally genuflected to in the later Dictatorships of the Proletariat that actually ended up recreating what was and is (in China) really more a kind of State Capitalism. But it has long been my view that without this "evolution", if you will, of a "new man/woman" more socially conscious and committed, to the whole rather than mere "wealth accumulation" self-interest, the spiral we are on into environmental degradation and socio-economic collapse is a done deal, and just a matter of time.

The "new man/woman" concept which again, at its roots, speaks to the need for a fundamental change in perception, thinking and social morality, before there is a hope in Hell to a satisfactory resolution of the current destructive direction of human evolution/ development.

Yes, a kind of widespread socially and individually carried out, "deprogramming" process needs to go on across societies, that ends the time of "the sheeple" mentality, and buying into the endless growth, class system perceptions and presumptions of global capitalism. Which barricades MAY be already again being stormed in Thailand and Greece, for examples. Hopefully. For it won't occur separately or apart from struggling against what is either.

The new man/woman

This indeed seems to be a prerequisite for the sort of transformation under discussion. A new way of thinking about the world....A paradigm shift if you will.

Bertrand Russell was fond of pointing out that in his lifetime, humans in his society (the UK) had gone from believing that it was acceptable to kill a man over a point of honour (via a duel), to a belief that deliberate killing was never right outside of warfare. He would go on to envision the end of warfare as en extension of such evolution.

The end of acquisitiveness and excessive consumption requires a similar revolution in thought, not to mention a completely different economic calculus, which factors in externalities.

In fact, given a new calculus we may not be talking about the end of 'growth' at all.

Socialisms environmental record? Anyone?

Alright, it's obvious Morales is a socialist, and his entire critique of capitalism is grounded in this. But really: is he actually so dense as to suggest that the environmental legacy of socialism is anything but appalling? On a strictly comparative basis, capitalism is postively green: it's worth noting that the environmental movement emerged from and has flourished within capitalist states. Environmentalists under socialist regimes? Six feet under Mother Earth. And seriously folks, does anyone here really understand the notion of economic growth? The Tyee publishes a story: that's economic growth. You buy a bike: that's also growth. You have the bike fixed...that's growth too. Shouldn't we be getting a tad more sophisticated, and talk about what sort of growth we're referring to? Economic growth can occur entirely in the social realm, and involve little or no extraction of resources. So criticizing 'growth' itself is not only foolish, it's downright nonsensical.

Toquer

Thanks, but most of us are quite capable of understanding what sort of growth we're talking about.

As for the environment under socialist regimes, I wouldn't call it any more appalling than capitalism's record. Its a mixed record for sure but a few dictators aside its not any worse. Let's recall that capitalism has had more than its share of dictators that lined people up against a wall and shot them too.

And when we go looking for lessons on how to do things better we won't be getting much from the environmental mess capitalism produced on Haiti.

But if you want to start keeping score I'm pretty sure I can list more bad things happening in capitalist countries.

Break the cycle of ignorance!

Degrowth will come when we issue money into the economy through public banks. We exist in a myriad of ponzi schemes that suck the life blood out the working man. Income tax is the claw-back of our wealth designed to keep us all under heel. Remove the burden of usury from the shoulders of the public and the exponential growth necessary to keep the ponzi schemes growing will disappear. Stay ignorant of the mechanism of our oppression and we will be forever caught up in a mindless orgy of consumerism. It's built into our system. Watch "Money as Debt". Break the cycle of ignorance!

Stealing from the rich....

"In fact, given a new calculus we may not be talking about the end of 'growth' at all." wrote Deeby.

And a very insightful observation you have made indeed, my friend. It is much a matter of what kind of "growth" we are talking here-, outside of the crass material notion of it, typified by ALL current socio-economic systems.

Nobody wants to or should live in abject material poverty, of course, and likely the overcoming of that is a part of making it possible for people to arrive at "a different place", in terms of other kinds of no less desirable "growth", in terms of how we see and interact with the world, and our place in it, especially the world of nature.

Freedom from serious material want is important, but also is simply having "time", "free time" away from the slave processes of obsessive preoccupation with material "wealth" acquisition. And time, "free time" for relationship building, play, and interaction with nature are, to my mind, more precious elements/ aspects of the well lived life than enslavement to the "market driven" notions of "the work ethic", especially, fulfillment through "slave work".

Frig 'em. It is better not to work at a slave job for slave wages. Better to steal from the rich instead.

How rich do you need to be? How many life times do you think you are going to live?

Arithmetic, Population and Energy

If you haven't seen Dr Albert Bartlett's lecture on growth it's worth the time - it's growth from the perspective of a physicist and available on google videos in it's entirety. His arguments are quite irrefutable; continual growth is not possible in a closed system. It's not a communist / capitalist thing. It's a math thing. At the current growth rate our population will double in 40 years or so. Energy consumption growing at 4% will double in about 20 years. I can't imagine a world with 10 billion people and twice the energy consumption would be a very nice place to live and I don't understand why it's anyone's goal. Imagine Vancouver as Hong Kong.

However, I agree that I don't see humans making the changes on their own. As "Bobby Peru" says the working people are laughing at ideas of a zero growth economy; and that is sadly true of many - probably more true of white-collar workers.

That said, at some point human population and the economy will stop growing; and it will be very uncomfortable if, when that happens, we don't have a plan for making the changes needed... but what politician today would develop a plan (although the pentagon is working on a plan, I hear).

Personally, I think we could live lives that are just as fulfilling - probably more - without growth; but I can't imagine it happening now - in the culture we've built over the last couple hundred years.

So... good luck everyone.

When The Man Comes Around

I see there are many well meaning people posting personal views about trying to lead happier lives with less materialism and greed. That's admirable because each of us should try to live better lives. But, therein lies the problem with the fantasy of degrowth advocates. What is good for the individual is not necessarily good to impose on all of society. Or is impossible to impose. Or would totally destroy society when we try to execute it.

I know Frank thinks I'm ranting, but instead of embracing this theory, I'm challenging it with simple questions that haven't been answered simply because the answers would sound absurd. Absurd in the way The Great Leap Forward killed 20 million Chinese. No one can answer the basic question: Who will decide what is good or bad growth? Will it be another left wing, NDP kind of committee composed of unionists, social workers, teachers- people who know nothing about business or capitalism.

Capitalism certainly has its faults. But is degrowth or Communism (they read like the same thing except degrowth is supposed to be more enlightened- think Communism 2.0, and won't end up nearly destroying the countries that practice it- like Russia, China, Cuba.

Have any of you travelled the old Soviet Union and former East Bloc in the years just after collapse. The amount of pollution due to non-existent or outdated anti-pollution equipment or environmental laws was far worse than the US.

Now don't get me wrong. I'd love to depend on a massive server farm the size of let's say, Metro Town, deciding on what constitutes a fair society. But until then, it'll be decided by humans and that scares me. I mean, Glen Clark and his ilk in the 90s weren't even practicing degrowth, yet they managed to destroy the BC economy. So think of what the degrowthers will destroy. It's their kind of thinking that fueled the Cultural Revolution.

So before we open the War of Degrowth can we decide who are the rich people we will be hanging? And who will be purged? Some of you may find that it's the person you see in the mirror.

Already dealt with

I have already dealt with the question of the USSR, Bobby P. The whole subject is a red herring. No one here sees it as a model to follow and its correct name is "state capitalist". The difference between it and present corporate state capitalism is that there was only one corporation - the entire system, where as we have a couple of hundred corporations - aided and abetted by the state - to dominate and exploit us. We do not want state capitalism - or state socialism if that is what you want to call it. We want a society with a cooperative economy, which means a democratic economy. If people could democratically determine the nature of the economy, both as workers and as consumers of these cooperatives, I am certain that we would have a much more enviro-friendly economy than either corporatist or state capitalist models.

And as well...

If you want to get an idea of what both a cooperative and sustainable economy could look like see
http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com/

Booby Peru

The USA exports much of its pollution. If you want to compare USSR pollution with Western pollution go check out the beaches of India where ships are torn apart, or where kids strip computers. There's lots of third world people dealing with the results of Western pollution. Out of sight, out of mind is good politics, its obviously worked on you, but the pollution is still there.

Glen Clark destroyed the BC economy? Yet unemployment was lower, population growth was higher and economic growth was higher than under Campbell. So if Clark destroyed the economy I can only imagine what you tell people Campbell's done to it.

If you want to see a capitalist version of no growth, look at the interior of BC under Campbell.

degrowth and Greece

The capitalist version of no-growth is taking place in Greece, as we speak. Unfortunately, decisions as to who will be purged are being made by the “beast within us”.

The violence and mayhem is the result of what happens when, as Frederic Bastiat claims, the “plundered“ classes seek … by revolutionary means rather than bringing legal plunder to an end … to get their share of the wealth.

No Good Growth

At this point, with the mid 2009 world population estimate of 6,790,062,216 and worldwide energy consumption of over 16 Terrawatts, no growth is good growth. Energy consumption has nearly doubled since 1980. World population is double what it was in 1968. If growth is anything other than zero (or negative) population and energy consumption will double again. I think I'm pretty safe in saying right now any growth is bad growth.

You could even argue that, well growth in technology will improve efficiency and then we can keep our energy consumption flat or even decline. Maybe, but to date the Jevons Paradox has, sadly, killed that dream. The Jevons Paradox says that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource. So far that's what's happened. You make more efficient light bulbs and we use more light bulbs. More efficient cars and we drive farther.

A crazy thing about growth is how doubling works. When we read that the energy consumption has doubled in 30 years (since 1980) we should recognize that this means that the quantity of energy that was used in those 30 years was approximately equal to the total of all of the energy that was used in our entire history (up to 1980). If you don't believe me do the math.

It's the same with population. If we double the population in another 40 years (2050) there will be more people alive then, than have lived in all history up until 2010.

It seems a little excessive and I don't see us getting there - staying the course. De-growth seems like a sensible response. How to do it is probably the most important question facing humanity. If we let things fall as they may, I can't imagine it will be much fun for anyone.

vinegarjug

“If we double the population in another 40 years (2050) there will be more people alive then, than have lived in all history up until 2010.”

I think some recalculation may be required. You may want to check this site

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx

and this one

http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/People

Population Growth

You are correct if you consider the much more steady state human population that stayed under 1 million people from 200,000 years ago until 10,000 BC. Also, Keyfitz's calculation is certainly an order of magnitude estimate as well and if I'm out, it's not by much.

I'm comfortable with my statement if you take the starting point at 10,000 BC with 1 million people and assume a population growth of ~ 1.6%. The math is pretty easy.

D is the doubling period. P is the current population. T is the total that lived to that point.

D....P.....T

1....2.....2 2 dble their pop and die.
2....4.....6 six have lived until now.
3....8.....14 and so on
4....16....30 .
5....32....62 .
6....64....126 .
7....128...254
8....256...510 and so on
9....512...1022 .
10...1024..2046 .
11...2048..4094 .
12...4096

Given steady growth, after 12 doublings the current population is 4096... At the end of 11 doublings the sum of the populations from all previous times was 4094.

So, to clarify, assuming steady growth of ~1.6% (which we've approximately had since about 10,000 years ago - minus some wars and plagues) in 2050 there will be ~ 13.6 billion people alive (god let's hope not) which will be more people than have lived from 10,000 years ago until 2010.

Maybe we control population grown and it drops to 1.1%; well now we double in 63 years (2073) instead.

I don't think we'll get there. We won't be able to feed us all long before then no matter how clever we think we are. So, planning zero or negative growth now is probably a good idea.

The method we choose should be equitable... otherwise there will be wars. Which will suck, a lot.

Kits Commuter

Agreed! But -- as imperfect as our educatonal system is, even that is being scaled back, under the "lowest common denominator" rule.

KitsCommuter...

You are very largely right. There are many complex soft and hard ropes, including ignornce, that keep the masses enslaved to the system's "consumerism", but our slavery is largely achieved by keeping us in a never endiing state of "money indebtedness".

And there is another big one. During the great Solidarity struggles of the eighies I was working on one of the largest cattle ranches in the country. I mean, this place was isolated, and what these farmers and cowboys knew about class solidarity you could have put on the head of a pin. But these two bosses I overheard talking were actually worried that outside agitators would nonetheless come on the ranch and influence these "peasants". At the time, I thought it was quite funny actually.

BUT, anyway, this one boss, the head honcho, says,"Not to worry. We'll keep everyone so goddamn busy, they will hardly have time to sleep or shit, let alone make trouble. And that they did.

Though folks generally did understand nonetheless, I must say, why they were being kept so friggin' busy, and talked about it more amongst themselves than they would have otherwise.

Keep 'em busy and pooped out, and keep 'em in debt. Which near everyone was there, to the ranch company store.

Take care, brother/sister. I always read your stuff. :-)

reinventing education

There have been few moments in human history where education systems glimpsed the opportunity to let enlightenment (learning and knowledge) find the darkest corners of society. The most notable was the advent of moveable type and the introduction of the printing press.

Humanity was presented with a golden opportunity. “Ignorance” became a reality, and the elite soon realized its power. And it didn’t take long before the opportunity to manage ignorance expanded from primary levels to prestigious institutions around the globe.

For the elite, the Gutenberg press opened a kind of Pandora’s box, the contents of which, threatened their control over the social constructions that ensured the flow of wealth followed the “right” path.

For the last six hundred years the elite have been trying to regain control, and for the most part they have largely succeeded. Ignorance and the “lowest common denominator” have become sought after and achievable goals.

But the struggle for control has met a new enemy; the Internet and global social networking has the potential to reinvent education. If enough “education” escapes the grasp of those who seek to suppress it, an enlightened global village may become a reality.

Degrowth

My favourite author in the subject, and a leading thinker, is Serge Latouche. His work on Africa is masterful, see L'Autre Afrique: Entre don et marché (Albin Michel, 1998).

For an idea of his work, see http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Degrowth-Economics-Latouche17nov04.htm

Degrowth followers tend to do what this article did, mix it all up, simplify, reduce, leave us a bit confused and with overly simplistic solutions.

How about first doing this, as part of the process: listening to others on the other side of development, and learning from their ingenuity, natural intelligence and ability to escape from the ridiculous dogmas that are mere fashion in the hypocritical developed world. That does not mean becoming a follower of Evo, by the way.

As long as the developed west proposes impossible symbolism and moral double talk as a response to its excesses, it will have no authority to tell anyone else how and where to grow, never mind start preaching about degrowth.

Degrowth Imperative

The degrowth movement isn't a novel idea but a global imperative. In 2006, mankind exhausted the planet's annual production of renewables by October 9. Last year that advanced to September 25. We're eating our seed corn. This is inarguably manifested in deforestation, desertification, species extinction and notably the collapse of global fisheries, and the rapidly spreading freshwater crisis. We're burning this candle at both ends and climate change can only worsen the problem. Degrowth isn't a nice idea, it is an imperative.

Maybe What We Need is Growth - Intellectual Growth

So far, in the last two weeks:
Vernon residents rebel against the idea of water restrictions;
A Medical marijuana facility opens in Maple Ridge and is "questioned" by the mayor and RCMP;
A rooftop farm in Vancouver's Chinatown is turned down by owners;

We have a long, long way to go before we even grasp the concept of de-growth.

Devaluing the currency of the human hand

It is no good to talk about economic systems if they continue to be dead ones.

To create economic systems that are alive - that bring us life.... and thus meaningful lives....we must figure out first what it means to be truly alive.

The rise of mass production, rampant growth/development reflects, I think, a mass and parallel disconnection from our physical bodies, a disconnection from "our human hands"... and handiwork - a disconnection from the physical and cultural "knowing" embodied in the creative and utilitarian urge to make things for ourselves....an urge that holds the potential to bring both meaning and definition to our lives.

In the final paragraph of his
book "Nature and Madness", Paul Shepard points out:

Quote: "Beneath the veneer of civilization, to paraphrase the trite phrase of humanism, lies not the barbarian and animal, but the human in us who knows the rightness of birth in gentle surroundings, the necessity of a rich non-human environment, play at being animals, the discipline of natural history, juvenile tasks with simple tools, the expressive arts of receiving food as a spiritual gift rather than as a product, the cultivation of metaphorical significance of natural phenomena of all kind...There is a secret person undamaged in every individual, aware of the validity of these, sensitive to their right moments in our lives...."

From Europe to America

Hi,
I'm happy to see North America now aware of this movement.
In Europe (especially in France, Italia and Spain), theories and practical experiences (Transition towns) are already well described.
Let's move on together, we have little time to act.
Romain (French guy living in Spain)
P.S: www.deshazkundea.org (degrowth in basque language)
http://twitter.com/decrecimiento