• F04118F@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This sounds nice for someone in a developed country who has all they need, and is only satisfying their wants. But for most of the world, economic development is a necessity and a lifesaver. Child mortality is reduced, life expectancy and education level increased, child labor decreased, as a country’s economy grows. This is not a fringe right-wing idea. This is the very real effect of economic growth in developing countries, i.e. most of the world.

    Degrowthers often seem to forget that applying their ideas will literally kill millions in developing countries, by preventing the economic developments that would have saved them.

    FWIW, I am not a fan of unbridled capitalism either but think that it is important to consider science in important matters like this and not just go with gut feeling. That applies to both fascism and degrowth.

    • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Degrowth addresses that, contrary to your opinion. Degrowth in the global north provides the space for the global south to properly develop, something that has been systematically denied to them in many places by western powers through unequal exchange and neocolonialism.

    • yimby@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think a more fair take is that we need growth in underdeveloped places and degrowth in highly developed places. It’s less about changing the total economic output and more about changing how that output is distributed.

        • escapesamsara@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is a direct function of development. All of Africa produces less CO2 than Alabama, and Alabama is the least developed state in the developed world.