by theluckycountry » Thu 03 Jul 2025, 18:57:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'L')ucky,
As the thread starter I can say it was started with the hope of finding someone who other path forward, of identifying some economic principal to guide us. Is see none. ... Perhaps AL in the form of robotization? Degrowth in itself needs a goal, degrow to where? Some sustainable level. Japan continues to be the leader in this experiment,That Japan seems to struggle forward provides some small hope.
Degrow to where

I love it. Do we put trump in charge? Elon? They can't even control their own mouths, children in a playground, and that's all the world is for them, a giant playground full of expensive toys and "We" don't even come into their thinking aside from finding new ways to exploit us. I'm sure the nation's resources could have been diverted to mitigations, JH Kuntsler was a big proponent of rebuilding the nation's railways and he was right. Cheap mass transit of people and goods, you could run the trains on wood if it came to that but they are very efficient (with low labor costs).
Japan... It's a huge exporter and the profit after paying for the base resources helps as does the fact they have taken on a massive debt. But I'll tell you this, robots consume a lot more energy than humans. Humans can survive on a couple of bowls of rice a day (and some vegetables) Robots are very expensive to build and maintain, humans are free, and free to maintain. If one becomes disabled or sick you simply replace it with another free one. Naturally in our modern Western world humans became more expensive but that has come about due to the fossil fuel bounty I'm sure you'll agree. But 300 years ago? 100 years in the future?
Why people assume the future must necessarily encompass a society of wealth and opulence (relative) is the big wonder to me? Just because fossil fuels dragged us out of the muck and gave us nice homes and automobiles, TV sets and refrigerators full of food does not = we will have that in the future. It's a Huge Blind spot for nearly everyone who addresses this problem. There are many many cultures around the world that live and thrive on a subsistence basis, a hand to mouth basis. The common denominator with all of them is that they don't employ fossil fuels in their lifestyles.
I watched a video the other month of a country in southern central Europe where the train service to remote farmers was discontinued, an old soviet block nation. It was the only reliable means of cheap transport up there and the people of those small towns are having to take a step back to 1920's living. These people don't have toilet paper, or electricity for the most part. Same thing has been happening elsewhere all across the globe. Why should we be any different? You can't invent your way out of resource depletion. I like watching train services, they are the canary in the coal mine. Every nation that has fallen into relative poverty has lost them. Look at Japan, people thought they were crazy for building the Shinkanzen high speed service in the 1960's, in the era of jet travel. But it was one of the smartest moves they made and they made it leading into the peak of their industrial power and wealth. You want to know how a nation is doing, look at it's rain networks. Not the old branch lines, but the main lines.
Now what use are millions of robots if people can't afford what they are producing? Whose going to pay to build them then? Degrowth is obvious, it's dieback, like the opposite of tree growth. Our civilization's simply going back to what was before, before F-Fuels. This is why the only logical response to degrowth is to store up physical wealth now in the good times, like storing up corn seed before a massive drought. Is it sustainable? No, but for a few of us, until we die, and perhaps for our children. There is no "collective" solution for all of us, there never was. That's why I said the thread was ass-backwards. Unless you can transition into the elite classes you are in the working classes and they are all heading down into the muck again.
It's pointless to seek solutions that don't exist, and unfortunately no one wants to discuss personal mitigation, because that's not "Woke" and entails giving something up Today in exchange for something useful in the future. People believe they are doing that by putting current earnings into paper and digital investment vehicles but history has proven that is folly because when bad times come these investments get stolen. Even land you own (in most of the world) can be stolen if you can't pay the taxes on it. The concept of Degrowth implies there are big problems down the road and we have to adjust to that reality. It's true, there are big problems, but you can't experience Degrowth and live anything like you are today because once the depletion curve gets moving it drops like a stone. On the way up the Bell curve the extra resources were shared with an ever growing world population and with ever more countries so "we" didn't personally see the benefits of it, just our small share of benefit. On the way down the diminishing share will be amplified because all those extra mouths will still be there demanding their share too.
A world war could change that though.
We're 17 years past the peak now and the 3rd World is going hungry and dark. We'll be next, we're well on the way in fact.