Ep 167: ”Degrowth” - the plan for civilisational decline and disaster.

17 snips

Dec 14, 2022

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Production in Capitalism vs. Communism

The author challenges the notion that firms needlessly increase production, arguing this is a feature of communism, not capitalism.
Under capitalism, supply and demand regulate production, unlike in communist systems like China.

INSIGHT

Reliability of Renewables

The author questions the feasibility of relying solely on renewable energy sources like solar and wind.
They highlight the challenge of powering cities at night and criticize policies that restrict reliable energy sources like coal.

ADVICE

Reject Degrowth

Reject degrowth policies that limit access to resources and hinder well-being.
Embrace abundance and access to resources, as they contribute to human well-being.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

In this episode I respond to an article in the Science Journal “Nature”. Here is the link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x

Nature is among the highest tier of journals in the world - highly respected and the place every scientist would love to have their work published at some point in their career. Nature has editorials as well as journal articles and they have effectively a letters to the editor section and commentary. Nonetheless, although this article is labelled as “comment” it has 8 authors all claiming expertise in disciplines from environmental science through to ecological economics and sociology. I refute the article paragraph by paragraph and point by point providing analysis, opinion and reflections. This is a clash of worldviews: that of decline and degrowth and pro-environment and that of progress, growth and pro-people. This was something of a “straw that breaks the camel’s back” moment. Just as around the world many people are struggling to pay energy bills and governments persist in implementing policies that will only see the cost of living due to energy policy increase further while the overall wealth of households decreases, Nature sees fit to publish a defence of strong-socialism. This piece refers to “science” and yet it is not science. It is not even economics. It is an ideology screed. And a screed of this kind needs to be answered because, as I conclude - this is dangerous. This is literally life, livelihood and liberty threatening. The brakes are presently on the economies of the world because of the misconception that rapid progress and growth are a bad thing. That population increase is a bad thing. That cheap reliable energy is a bad thing and the prescription for this is to coerce people into using forms of energy that are not yet shown to have worked reliably anywhere (in other words entirely untested in even one place before being mandated on all places) and in many places simply not available yet, while coal and fossil fuel supplies are decommissioned too early. This is a threat to nation states and to the globe. This is my defence of humanity against anti-rational memes, prosaic “bad ideas” and stasis.

Enjoy! :)