• uis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    genocide and privation

    It’s opposite of degrowth. It is capitalism with its wide beastly grin.

    The preservation of agrarian lifestyles and “harmony with the planet”

    I like how you mix it togerher under pro-nuclear thread about combating climate change. Also it says you didn’t research what degrowth is and possibly doesn’t have even common sense.

    is not more important than the betterment of the species, no matter how much people cry about it

    And it is you who calls someone fascist?

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, when you improve people’s living condition is called improving people’s living condition. Americans call it socialism.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay let’s break it down.

      De- means the opposite of. Growth is when things get bigger. De-growth means shrinking human resource usage.

      How can we shrink human resource usage? Two ways:

      1. Shrink the human population. ie genocide.
      2. Shrink the resource usage per person. ie privation.

      Address the question. How is “degrowth” not a dog whistle for either killing hundreds of millions of people, or forcing hundreds of millions of people to live in poverty?

      • sudneo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not OP but:

        • population control (is hard but) can be done in a way that in 20-30 years starts having effect. Genocide is not the only way to reduce population?
        • reducing the consumption of individuals does not amount necessarily to starvation and poverty either. Right now we produce too much and too poorly. Reducing consumption might mean less conspicuous consumption from the top 50% of the population but also less “things” that last more.

        In both these examples unfortunately the main obstacle is economic.