Talk:Degrowth

	This Economics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Degrowth costume

Should consist of something like this or 'just woad' (like the Ancient Britons) - ordinary clothes do use a lot of resources after all. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess it must limit to not following fashion. Diacelium (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

So I searched for answers, the only thing I found was this :

"We do not need to purchase so many new clothes. Let us mend or exchange the clothes we have, buy second-hand, or make our own. In a degrowth society, the fashion and marketing industries would quickly wither away. A new aesthetic of sufficiency would develop, where we creatively re-use and refashion the vast existing stock of clothing and materials, and explore less impactful ways of producing new clothes."

And this book, if you ever get the motivation to read something like that : https://www.amazon.com/Craft-Use-Post-Growth-Kate-Fletcher/dp/1138021016/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475155853&sr=8-1&keywords=post+growth+fashion Diacelium (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The very term

Even people who are against growth seem to be unable to say "growth".--Max Sinister (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"You're free to show an alternative"

"Stop edit-warring" says the guy reverting edits that have been there since fucking December while dismissing any and all criticisms with a blunt handwave.

What's your justification for removing the sections about critiques of growth theory from a post-colonial or feminist perspective? Or your justification for removing the bit about germ theory and its effect on public mortality rates (something independent of growth no matter how much you whinge). "This is stupid" is not an explanation, and neither is exhorting Solow's model like it's some kind of holy text. Pointing out that improvements in labor have everything to do with activism and nothing to do with a vague concept of "growth" is also not "irrelevant" or "anecdotal evidence." Our own article on anecdotal evidence says this:

If you use one or more anecdotes as an example of a general rule which is already supported by a broad, comprehensive investigation (i.e., your evidence/argument does not rely on the anecdotes, they are just used to illustrate the point).

While we're at it, feel free to explain how your frustrating bullshit accounts for the lack of reproductive labor or unpaid care labor in GDP measurements, or how Costa Rica, a nation with a GDP much lower than the US, has a higher life expectancy rate. Carthage (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

For the third time. Colonialism cannot explain long-term growth, which is based on technological change. According to Solow himself, 87% of the economic growth in US is based on that [1]. Colonialism explains the capital, which is only one part of model (and as we saw, cannot explain the long-term growth). Yes, the Solow model is not gospel. It superseded the Harrod–Domar model. But there is not, as far as I'm aware any alternative that explains growth better than it. Healthcare is also explained by income per capita. Giving a bunch of stories is not how we deal with data. If there is evidence that those anecdotes, and not economic growth, account for improvements in healthcarte, you're free to post them too. The US is a country with a very high income per capita, but the only country in the OECD without universal healthcare that doesn’t invest very much on primary health care services, so, growth is not the issue here.[2] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course there are other factors that explain healthcare. But saying that growth is not part of it is pretty dumb. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't. The post-colonialist critique is pretty simple: growth is unsustainable (think climate change) and rooted in exploitation of the global south through unequal apparatuses. Solow's model is irrelevant, since this is not an economic criticism, but a sociological and ecological one. Please explain where the global north gets much of its resources from to sustain rates of growth? Also, please feel free to explain how washing one's hands isn't directly related to improved healthcare? Given your lack of objections to the feminist critiques, I am free to re-add them, I take it? Also, given your lack of objections to how labor activism directly resulted in improvements of life for workers and not growth, I can re-add that too? What's "anecdotal" about hand-washing and its effects on basic health? Even if we pretend we're not citing a major degrowth advocate and economic anthropologist, this wiki doesn't prohibit original research. Carthage (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC) "growth is (...) rooted in exploitation of the global south through unequal apparatuses". For the fourth time, it isn't, it is based on technological change, capital cannot explain growth in rich countries. Also, claiming that the most important growth model is irrelevant to a page arguing for degrowth is unhinged. I haven't read the feminist critiques, I just rolledback the page, unfortunately RW does not allow us to rollback only parts of the edits. Yes, washing hands is important to healthcare, but saying that it is a major factor require evidence. Do you have it? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Just read the feminist critiques, and they feel more like a criticism towards the GDP calculation (and a very common one) than an argument for degrowth, but whatever, you can add them. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "how labor activism directly resulted in improvements of life for workers and not growth", this is pretty silly. Growth results in better quality of life. [3][4] Does labor activism also result in better QoL? Possibly. But both things can work together. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be said that the stuff I added about water sanitation is a methodological criticism of past research not accounting for the role water sanitation played in QoL outcomes when looking at both medical advancements and economic growth in terms of their effects on QoL. The source used is secondary to the actual research looking at the effects water sanitation had on QoL outcomes. That secondary source being Jason Hickel who is an economic anthropologist from the London School of Economics. He affirms that rises in GDP had a stronger statistical association with QoL than medical advancement/quality of healthcare, but because public policies like water sanitation were left out of the analysis the effect is likely overstated. If you don’t control for all factors that may possibly predict outcomes more accurately than you’d frankly be engaging in sloppy research. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)