I think that our Judeo-Christian heritage is deeply steeped in the fundamental theme of the Old Testament that we appease God and show our fealty by denying ourselves. It started with Adam's apple, and Abraham, and continues down to this day. Thus, fasting and other forms of self-denial (even self flagellation in rare cases) permeate the western religions. The rules of religion are mostly "don'ts", especially about the things people want to do. This ethic is so imbedded in our psyches that we can't help thinking up new ways to deny ourselves, reduce our pleasures and minimize our growth.
Trucks and eating meat look different here in the Great Plains.. and giving them up in the name of ideology is cultural colonialism. Those of us in ag-related fields remember when the idea was to help people use technology that was better because it worked for them and the environment. What not be clear to the (possibly Coastal Elites) writing this stuff is that fundamentally their argument is “you need to do what we want- you don’t have a voice”. That tone speaks so clearly that we to be degrowthed or rewilded or whatever else is the view of elites...as Emerson said “who you are speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you’re saying.”
A young lady falls asleep in a college economics class. The professor taps her on shoulder to wake her up and says: "What is the answer to my question?" She says: "I didn't hear the question, but the answer is 'Increase the money supply'".
However his thesis, both concretely (that fossil fuels are good), and more ephemerally (that our knowledge system is based on a radical philosophy that is not well grounded in logic, but rather is religious in nature) are so profound, they deserve snd need repetition.
And his thesis requires a serious foundation be laid, and documented, which Epstein does.
Nonetheless, those whose paycheck depends on denying his simple and clear logic, will remain resolute against his rhetoric. More than likely smearing the threat to their billions he represents.
The problem is like sharks, they have to keep moving or they die. There are many reasons why degrowth would be a disaster. I will cite only one of them that has to do with the way money is created. Banks create money when they make loans and enter the loans into ledgers. There is no money in advance. The act of lending creates the money. The rub is that the borrower must pay back, not only the principal, but the interest, and the money for interest was never created in the first place. The borrower pays back the interest by "earning" it from someone else who borrowed. As a result, the accumulation of unpaid loans requires that more and more loans must be made each year. Any stagnation would produce multiple bankruptcies. In some ways it is a Ponzi scheme.
Great article and loved the video. Thanks. A couple comments:
To see the underappreciated, dematerialization that has been going on for decades while growth continues, read MIT scientist Andrew McAfee’s “More from Less”.
For the salutary benefits of growth, read Benjamin M Friedman’s “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth”. (Friedman was the former chair of the Harvard Economics Dept.) On the other hand, Hans Rosling’s amazing 14 minute TED talk probably makes the point even better.
The degrowther quote included above says “Overgrown societies can learn from Indigenous peoples …” etc. But the environmental stewardship of natives peoples has be greatly exaggerated. In his book “The Climate Casino”, William Nordhaus says (page 123) “more than half of the large mammal special of the Americas disappeared in a short period around when humans first arrived about 13,000 years ago, and they were probably annihilated by our spear-carrying ancestors”.
In my view, the degrowth people present a genuine conundrum that policy experts should confront explicitly. The degrowth idea is that there is not enough energy, mineral or ecological resources on the planet for all humans to arrive at the same level of consumption as even the lower quintiles of the developed nations. Humans are increasingly in what Jason Hickel calls “transgression of biophysical boundaries.”
This is basically the current version of Malthusianism. So far, the Malthusians have consistently underestimated the potential of technological innovation. But the argument that humans are blindly heading into irreversible ecological overshoot remains compelling. It is a very likely scenario.
I think Jason Hickel wholly agrees with Milanovic’s math. He then does what Malthusian’s have always done, which is to start choosing the winners and losers from a top-down ideological framework. You can see that in the linked Nature article. “Government action is crucial. This is a challenge, because those in power have ideologies rooted in mainstream neoclassical economics, and tend to have limited exposure to researchers who explore economics from other angles.”
Here's my point. Climate change and resource scarcity are genuine predicaments created by the fossil fuel age--- predicaments for which there may not be a good way to avoid tragedy. So we need to make a choice at the highest ethical level. Do we let the environmentalists continue their classist project of creating food and energy scarcity for the global poor. Or, do we explicitly embrace the goal of abundant-energy-for-all humans, even as we recognize the uncertainties of this techno-optimistic approach?
Alex Epstein as if cutting a Gordian Knot cuts through all these variants of anti humanity, by distinguishing those philosophers who measure progress, prosperity and morality in terms of human flourishing, versus those, now fashionable, thinkers who measure progress in terms of reducing impact or returning to nature.
For example, naturally occurring fresh water is laden with sediment, bacteria, by products of decomposition etc. Progress is serving billions a day with much cleaner municipal water. One metric rates that a win, the other a loss.
Dec 14, 2022·edited Dec 14, 2022Liked by Roger Pielke Jr.
There is another simple fact here being ignored. Wealthy societies spend money to limit pollution. Poor societies (de-growthed societies) dont have the money to limit pollution...
So, if immigration continues at > 2 million/year and GDP stays constant, doesn't that mean per capita GDP decreases? Not confident that Americans will accept a decreasing standard of living in order to combat climate change.
Very interesting view on degrowth. But from an economics standpoint, how do you take out self interest for the rich countries? No large grouo in any country is going to willingly reduce their standard of living.
Also TYPO - "has gain office" should be "has gained office"
I think that our Judeo-Christian heritage is deeply steeped in the fundamental theme of the Old Testament that we appease God and show our fealty by denying ourselves. It started with Adam's apple, and Abraham, and continues down to this day. Thus, fasting and other forms of self-denial (even self flagellation in rare cases) permeate the western religions. The rules of religion are mostly "don'ts", especially about the things people want to do. This ethic is so imbedded in our psyches that we can't help thinking up new ways to deny ourselves, reduce our pleasures and minimize our growth.
Related to my comment from The Free Press..https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/real-life-does-not-fit-the-narrative?r=e6x28&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post, great essay by Amanda Fortini.
Trucks and eating meat look different here in the Great Plains.. and giving them up in the name of ideology is cultural colonialism. Those of us in ag-related fields remember when the idea was to help people use technology that was better because it worked for them and the environment. What not be clear to the (possibly Coastal Elites) writing this stuff is that fundamentally their argument is “you need to do what we want- you don’t have a voice”. That tone speaks so clearly that we to be degrowthed or rewilded or whatever else is the view of elites...as Emerson said “who you are speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you’re saying.”
Apropos of my previous comment:
A young lady falls asleep in a college economics class. The professor taps her on shoulder to wake her up and says: "What is the answer to my question?" She says: "I didn't hear the question, but the answer is 'Increase the money supply'".
Parts are mildly repetitive.
However his thesis, both concretely (that fossil fuels are good), and more ephemerally (that our knowledge system is based on a radical philosophy that is not well grounded in logic, but rather is religious in nature) are so profound, they deserve snd need repetition.
And his thesis requires a serious foundation be laid, and documented, which Epstein does.
Nonetheless, those whose paycheck depends on denying his simple and clear logic, will remain resolute against his rhetoric. More than likely smearing the threat to their billions he represents.
The problem is like sharks, they have to keep moving or they die. There are many reasons why degrowth would be a disaster. I will cite only one of them that has to do with the way money is created. Banks create money when they make loans and enter the loans into ledgers. There is no money in advance. The act of lending creates the money. The rub is that the borrower must pay back, not only the principal, but the interest, and the money for interest was never created in the first place. The borrower pays back the interest by "earning" it from someone else who borrowed. As a result, the accumulation of unpaid loans requires that more and more loans must be made each year. Any stagnation would produce multiple bankruptcies. In some ways it is a Ponzi scheme.
Great article and loved the video. Thanks. A couple comments:
To see the underappreciated, dematerialization that has been going on for decades while growth continues, read MIT scientist Andrew McAfee’s “More from Less”.
For the salutary benefits of growth, read Benjamin M Friedman’s “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth”. (Friedman was the former chair of the Harvard Economics Dept.) On the other hand, Hans Rosling’s amazing 14 minute TED talk probably makes the point even better.
The degrowther quote included above says “Overgrown societies can learn from Indigenous peoples …” etc. But the environmental stewardship of natives peoples has be greatly exaggerated. In his book “The Climate Casino”, William Nordhaus says (page 123) “more than half of the large mammal special of the Americas disappeared in a short period around when humans first arrived about 13,000 years ago, and they were probably annihilated by our spear-carrying ancestors”.
Milanovic & Rosling map out two facets of the puzzle, Alex Epstein another. Eric Topol in https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-bright-side-of-the-covid-pandemic summarises the coming benefits of mRNA technology. The gaps are widening. Justice needs a place.
In my view, the degrowth people present a genuine conundrum that policy experts should confront explicitly. The degrowth idea is that there is not enough energy, mineral or ecological resources on the planet for all humans to arrive at the same level of consumption as even the lower quintiles of the developed nations. Humans are increasingly in what Jason Hickel calls “transgression of biophysical boundaries.”
This is basically the current version of Malthusianism. So far, the Malthusians have consistently underestimated the potential of technological innovation. But the argument that humans are blindly heading into irreversible ecological overshoot remains compelling. It is a very likely scenario.
I think Jason Hickel wholly agrees with Milanovic’s math. He then does what Malthusian’s have always done, which is to start choosing the winners and losers from a top-down ideological framework. You can see that in the linked Nature article. “Government action is crucial. This is a challenge, because those in power have ideologies rooted in mainstream neoclassical economics, and tend to have limited exposure to researchers who explore economics from other angles.”
Here's my point. Climate change and resource scarcity are genuine predicaments created by the fossil fuel age--- predicaments for which there may not be a good way to avoid tragedy. So we need to make a choice at the highest ethical level. Do we let the environmentalists continue their classist project of creating food and energy scarcity for the global poor. Or, do we explicitly embrace the goal of abundant-energy-for-all humans, even as we recognize the uncertainties of this techno-optimistic approach?
Thanks for posting this.
Ideologies, when metastasized - are impossible to step away from.
Reality and consequences do not matter.
The iron law of climate policy is very relevant here.
Alex Epstein as if cutting a Gordian Knot cuts through all these variants of anti humanity, by distinguishing those philosophers who measure progress, prosperity and morality in terms of human flourishing, versus those, now fashionable, thinkers who measure progress in terms of reducing impact or returning to nature.
For example, naturally occurring fresh water is laden with sediment, bacteria, by products of decomposition etc. Progress is serving billions a day with much cleaner municipal water. One metric rates that a win, the other a loss.
Milanovic indicates a difficult of engagement with degrowthers. It sounds like the difficulty of engagement with MMT.
There is another simple fact here being ignored. Wealthy societies spend money to limit pollution. Poor societies (de-growthed societies) dont have the money to limit pollution...
So, if immigration continues at > 2 million/year and GDP stays constant, doesn't that mean per capita GDP decreases? Not confident that Americans will accept a decreasing standard of living in order to combat climate change.
Very interesting view on degrowth. But from an economics standpoint, how do you take out self interest for the rich countries? No large grouo in any country is going to willingly reduce their standard of living.
Also TYPO - "has gain office" should be "has gained office"