/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

What's the deal with them? Simple, really: it's people who have a basic education in ecology. A discipline which, among other sciences of the finite material world, has made leaps and bounds in understand the world in the 150 years since Marx.

Why are you afraid of socialism being the economic system of sustainability? Why does it need to "grow", like capitalism?

Growth isn't the only way to develop productive forces. It's the fast option, but requires material conditions we no longer have.

>>476743
>it's people who have a basic education in ecology
So the problem is professional tunnel-vision ?

Their proposals for de-industrializing will make the ecological damage worse because all the clean technology (like for example nuclear, solar, wind and hydro) is based on mega-scale industrial processes, that cannot be replicated below a certain industrial capacity threshold.
That is not only the case for energy production, if you want to do fancy ecological stuff like realistically scalable perma-culture you will need very sophisticated farming robots, that require a much bigger industrial base than regular tractors. There are alternative to fossil fuel fertilizers, but they all have higher demands on industrial inputs.

>the finite material world
huh ?
the universe appears infinite

>has made leaps and bounds in understand the world in the 150 years since Marx.
declaring Marx as out-dated is a major pseud-red-flag

>Why are you afraid of socialism being the economic system of sustainability?
Steady states do not appear to be possible on larger scales, societies are either growing or shrinking. You are giving off more feudal vibes, feudal societies also believed in a eternally unchanging worlds. Socialists believe in progress, civilization advancement, like building giant space ships and going to the stars, and/or dismantling the planet Mercury to build a Dyson swarm, with self replicating space construction robots.

>Why does it need to "grow", like capitalism?
Marx's criticism of capitalism was that it wasn't going far enough, that it was becoming, as he put it "a fetter on the means of production". Socialists always wanted to take off the breaks from industrial production. The point was to reach a higher stage of development, greater mastery over the shaping of matter and so on. It's the polar opposite of what degrowthers preach.

How could you possibly manage to produce a very high quality of living for every last human, with less productive capacity ?
It looks like a austerity conspiracy dressed up as environmental concern.

More advanced industry will give you a cleaner world
less industrial capacity will not, scaling down means going back technologically and that means less output with more pollution.

There is no need to get in the blue cube, a Dyson swarm will have luxurious habitation for quadrillions

>>476744
>Growth isn't the only way to develop productive forces.
This is ignorance.

Developing productive forces requires more advanced technology.
More advance technology requires better materials.
Better materials require more energy to produce.
More energy requires building a bigger economy.

There are already proposals for technologies that require exotic matter, which can only be created in massive particle colliders that can transmute matter. This requires, a not insignificant fraction of the energy-output of a star.

>It's the fast option, but requires material conditions we no longer have.
We could start the next step by building nuclear fission power. The fissionable materials for that are universally available. There is near inexhaustible amounts of uranium in sea-water and thorium can be economically extracted from dirt everywhere on the planet.

Don't try to rationalize away progress, there are no material conditions standing in our way. This problem is ideological in nature.

>>476746
Switching to fission is a major step towards degrowth tho. Degrowth doesn't mean regressing, that would just be shooting yourself in the foot. It just means scaling down as needed.

>>476747
>Switching to fission is a major step towards degrowth
What a strange experience, you're the first de-growther that isn't frothing with rage at the mention of nuclear power. Maybe you don't understand how nuclear power having a really high energy return on energy input (ERoEI) is really effective at juicing industrial growth.

>Degrowth doesn't mean regressing, that would just be shooting yourself in the foot. It just means scaling down as needed.
Scaling down means regressing, industrial-scale and technological-complexity are a co-dependency matrix, you cannot min-max your way out of that. Not to mention the effect on societies. If you reduce the power input, intellectual production will seize to produce science and regress to theology, if you reduce energy production enough slavery comes back. Suffice to say that neither of these two options are conducive to technological advancement. Theology impedes it on the intellectual level and slavery on the economic level. Even today lowering wages has resulted in reduced pace of technological advancement, simply because cheap labor competes against investments into productivity enhancing automation. The rising cost of energy might have played a factor in the resurgence of post-modern philosophical strains, that mimic many aspects of pre-modern thinking that are damaging scientific and technological progress, like when they cause so much cognitive befuddlement via the rejection of objective reality.

What i'm getting at here: industrial scale and technology levels are not knobs you can adjust separately. If you turn down one the other follows.

>>476748
>you're the first de-growther that isn't frothing with rage at the mention of nuclear power
I've never met a someone who was pro-degrowth but against nuclear. I guess we've both been in bubbles.
>Maybe you don't understand how nuclear power having a really high energy return on energy input (ERoEI) is really effective at juicing industrial growth.
And highly resource efficient at that. Vastly less radioactivity into the environment than coal, funnily enough.
>If you reduce the power input
Yeah reducing power input is always a bad idea. It's a matter of what it's used for, how it's generated and how efficient every part of the logistic chain is. Trains are also a major degrowth point. They carry way more than a long line of trucks, but they are magnitudes more efficient at it.
>industrial scale and technology levels are not knobs you can adjust separately. If you turn down one the other follows.
True, but they aren't hard tethered either.

>>476745
>clean technology
He believes the marketing

>If a half dozens conditions are met in just the right way, with a bit of luck, determination, and spunk – then things will be perfect and all the major problems will be solved.

This is the mark of a childish and naive mind. Please finish your homework and remember to brush your teeth before logging onto Leftychan

Depopulation is the only thing they believe in. "Degrowth" is always a proxy for the Malthusian crisis, as is ecology as a concept. That's always been the deal and always been what those at the apex of society believe in. It's not something that can be reasoned with, because for their interests, the truth is self-evident - the point of humanity is to cull the weak and feed on the cattle. What more needs to be said about that?

China's aims aren't taking any of that shit into account. They're interested in replenishing any natural resource they can, and so planting forests, conserving land, is something any proper state would do. This sort of thing happened in the Soviet Union too - the "development into infinity" mindset is a technocrat's fetish and denial of what they're really about, but no competent government thinks they're Captain Planet villains. The "degrowth" and neo-Malthusian arguments are about cannibalizing anything that would allow the people to live. Malthus doesn't want to preserve nature - he wants to bring the plague back and denude anything allowing the people to live, because the thrill of torture must be maximized. When you're dealing with those people, just keep in mind that they want to torture you infinitely and revel in that thrill, and your course of action in any further dealings shall be clear. Eugenics knows no other way, and eugenics can never fail. It can only be failed.

All of this by the way is a false narrative and always has been. It was false every time it is introduced, and like clockwork, every 20 years it is revised and invokes the same tired horseshit, usually with some Germanic ideology at its core to "doubt" or "critique" the observation of reasonable people that there is no crisis. If there were an actual environmental disaster of that sort, the actions of states would be very different, and no modern state is unaware of what happens in its domains at that scale. They are perfectly aware of what resources are consumed, extracted, what money comes in and out of their country, and industrial processes, sufficient enough that they may estimate whether industrial society can continue. If there was a true crisis, states would act immediately to protect their interest in maintaining industry. There is no such crisis though - only a planned campaign to enslave anyone who wasn't selected to enter the new world. The lack of seriousness about any of this makes clear what this always was. If any of this were real, states would act without regard to public opinion on the down low, and would likely have just started killing off their people since nothing stops them from doing this. This isn't about a "necessary" death due to resource shortfalls. This is about holding a knife at the throat of everyone who isn't in the club and telling them this is normal and that they will like it - or else.

The good news is that these assholes will never actually "win" or impose this policy. This plan is always used as a way to signal to eugenists that they will keep conducting their real business. No one actually believes there is "global boiling". The libs have gone insane and know it's over for them. At this point they don't even bother selling the climate boogaloo. It's ogre for them and they know it. Why would they need to pretend now? They already put out the call for full eugenism, and they march openly for eugenics. The death has already started. The glorification and thrill of torture is being maximized. It's too late to stop that as if it were a future event. It's gone on for too long, and so there is only survival. The climate narrative was mostly a way to appeal to left sentiments to get them to becoming screaming eugenists, and it succeeded enough to throw the left into disarray. It cleaved the remaining technocrat / technician leadership away from any democratic movement and told them they were special, "brights", and that eugenics was the true god. Sure enough, that's what a lot of the left really was, and so that is why we live in this hellworld.

If you want to talk about the actual environment - and there are people who will talk about this because, unlike some elitist in a UN department, their business and lives depend on productive or extractive activity - you can talk about that. You'd see very quickly that there's no "depopulation crisis" or even a market crisis necessitated by the environment in this vague way. All of this is a way to essentialize the intercine conflict in humanity, and the bastards use ecologism from multiple angles. The "immigrants and borders" talking point is the Rightoid neo-Hitlerite's version of this, intended to defuse nativist opposition to globalization and the protections of democratic nation-states or any national interest. That's why the Right's leaders always laugh at their base, and the cucks - fags they are - always line up for more. I keep wondering when they will finally learn, but Rightoids never learn.

As a purely economic matter, or a matter of treating economic behavior like physics and building a model of that, there just isn't a "looming crisis" involving scarcity. Land has been reclaimed and conserved because there's no point in exploiting for agriculture. We've become quite efficient at growing food and building things, and the bottleneck for further improvement is not human labor but technical know-how to make efficient factories, preserve soil quality, and so on. There isn't really a labor input that substitutes for the things that can be improved or controlled. What they're really doing with ecologism is eliminating you - you're the carbon they want to get rid of, and carbon is a proxy for living activity and things that allow us to do much at all. They want to tell you that you will eat soylent, you will own nothing, and you will be happy. It's all so fucking Germanic.

It is a persistent problem that a large unemployed population with nothing to do will get ideas that the world can and should be different, no matter how much they are destroyed and threatened and humiliated. When people can't find legitimate work - and when you work, you are not "bargaining", you are a beggar at the mercy of employers and that's the way the ruling interest likes it - they turn to any means they can to survive. They don't just lay down and rot. In an earlier time, the people were "doped" with welfare and trashy entertainment, while they were prepared for depopulation. Eugenics knows no other way. There never was any other plan, in any system. Pretending there was has been one of the great scams of our sorry, failed race called humanity. But, people persist out of pure stubbornness, because they have no reason to ever go along with this horseshit, and the genuine needs of the people are not that much. The chief need of human beings is security, and the cost of living is almost entirely a result of that cost of security being jacked up by mafias and drug lords, always aligned with the ruling interest in any time.

>>476755
>>476752
>>476753
>>476754
Meds

>>476745
I'm tempted to write a serious reply to this, but it seems your entire post (and other posts) consist of attacking straw men, indicating a desire for trolling instead of having a serious discussion.

>>476752
>Depopulation is the only thing they believe in.
Failed at your starting premise. Degrowth is about changing infrastructure to make room for more people. That it's capitalism that has made there be scarce room because space itself is commodifiable. Degrowth would mean never running out of room while continuing to grow in population.
Walkable cities, high density living and the demolition of all suburbs. Trains and the demolition of all reads. Nuclear energy and the bacterial convesion of remaining fossil oils into substances that can't be used for fuel before they can be pumped up. Killing the bourgs resposible for the vast majority of that pollution.

>>476749
So i take it you only seek to substitute older polluting technology with newer cleaner technology, within a stagnated economy. Is that what you mean with de-growth ?

I think that a growing economy would probably be able to achieve a higher substitution rate. I also think that economies can either grow or shrink but not stay at the same level. And why would we want to stay a Type0 Civilization on the Kardachev scale anyway?!

>>476751
So you believe that technology is inherently polluting ? Sorry but that is essentialism !

Your other claim is that major problems can't be solved. That sounds like toxic capitalist-realism. It does indeed look like capitalism is not able to fix these problems, but that doesn't mean we can't use a different mode of production that enables people to fix shit. It's not like there are no alternatives to capitalism.

Please don't try to mask you lack of supporting arguments with rhetorical bravado, that isn't fooling anyone.

>>476767
>capitalism can't solve the environmental problems that socialists made up to justify more market interference
Very intelligent take.

>>476766
>within a stagnated economy.
I don't really see why the economy would need to stagnate for that to happen. If anything the growth-over-all else model is choking itself out, allowing inefficiencies like rubber tire logistic and suburbs to form.

We aren't going to make it to teir 1 civ if we don't take a moment to despaghetify the beast and ensure we can restructure things as needed.

>>476765
I'm not eugene, keep that in mind.

What you are proposing, appears to be along the lines of decreasing the quantity of capital-stock while increasing population. If you do that, you would re-create the conditions for raising the capitalist profit rate. Because in economic terms this is turning back time to an earlier state of capitalist development where the ratio of capital to labor was still lower and hence the profit rate higher. While you could try to politically suppress capitalist tendencies, its probably not a good idea to do that. It's much better to create the material conditions that generate the political order you want without having to rely on heavy handed politics.

I do find it a good idea to convert more transport to trains and converting cities to clusters of habitat-units that each have a layout that prioritizes pedestrians while containing all of the day-to-day necessities in great proximity, is a good idea too. This is basically increasing the material efficiency of living/working spaces. You can spend some of the gain on reducing thee work day from 8 to 6 hours, and the work week from 5 to 4 days. But some of those gains have to flow into expansion of industry also. If you have a socialist system it needs to maintain near zero profit-rate conditions, otherwise it risks reverting back to capitalism.

Your acceptance of nuclear power speaks for you as well, good job not falling for the anti-fission power propaganda. But i don't follow your reasoning on bacteriological processing of oil ? What are you trying to achieve with that ? What makes oil a good fuel is the energy stored in the chemical bonds between hydrogen and carbon. Unless you release that energy it will remain a good fuel no matter what you do with it. Releasing the energy will definitely cause climate change emissions. If we knew a way to get the energy out of oil without emissions, we'd already be doing that. "Burning" oil with bacteria doesn't change those chemical realities. You could try to convert oil into stuff like Nafta (a chemical precursor for plastic) or various petrolium-feedstocks for pharmaceuticals, those do not get burned for fuel because they have more valuable applications in other areas. But the oil industry is already pursuing that route, basically they are already shifting away from fuel production to "higher-value-add" chemical feed-stocks.

Micro-organism based complex-molecule synthesis (making stuff with bacteria) is going to become a big industry, so you did have a decent hunch. But you probably don't want to feed those oil because that's kinda toxic stuff. Even synthetic micro-organisms bio-engineered for a specific purpose are still life-forms that want food. Your bacteria friends working in the bio-reactor will probably be much happier if you feed them something like algae that you farmed in the ocean.

If you want to make burning oil uninteresting you just need to create an energy source that's allowing civilization to maximize more entropy then what it gets from burning oil. My educated guess is that a hydrogen industry has those more desirable "entropy characteristics". (making hydrogen from nuclear wind and solar energy, to fuel power-hungry stuff like for example heavy machinery and airplanes)

>>476768
In 1896 a Swedish physicist (Svante Arrhenius) created the first model of climate change. "Climatic Change" appeared in print in 1975 in the Wallace Smith Broecker's paper. All of those were ideologically capitalist, so no socialists didn't invent climate change. The first hard proofs for climate change came from studdies that the oil industry did in the 1950s 60s and 70s. Unless you want to proclaim that oil-monopolists like Exxon-Mobile are part of a socialist conspiracy to make """anti-capitalist science""".

The reason why capitalism can't fix it is because it uses oil as a tool for wielding geo-political power. It's not just messing with oil. Wall-street is also speculating with copper, which is driving up the cost of copper, and that is causing manufacturing to use cheaper copper-clad power-cords and cables. Those have either aluminum or steel cores that are only coated with copper. Those cables have higher resistance which makes them waste energy and can be potential fire-hazards in high power applications. They also are less nice because they're stiffer and recycling is harder because you have to separate metals. This is another case of capitalist economic tendencies creating sub-optimal technical artifacts.

>>476769
>I don't really see why the economy would need to stagnate for that to happen.
All the de-growth theory i've seen says it wishes to scale back the industrial system, and that will cause economic stagnation.

>If anything the growth-over-all else model is choking itself out,
Not really, currently the reason why capitalism isn't growing is because of internal contradictions. Too much surplus is being spend on unproductive stuff like war or super-luxury for the super-rich.

>allowing inefficiencies like rubber tire logistic and suburbs to form.
The fuck does that mean ? My bicycle has rubber tires, my shoe-soles are made from rubber as well.
Is this some kind urban vs sub-urban political fight to you ?
FYI i want arcologies, which is something else entirely.

>We aren't going to make it to teir 1 civ if we don't take a moment to despaghetify the beast and ensure we can restructure things as needed.
I don't get what you want. A Tier 1 civilisation means mastery over a planet, which will probably require one or 2 more centuries of economic growth. How do you reconcile this with de-growth ?
I'm also not sure i understand the spaghetti metaphor. All we need to do, to the industrial base, is look at all the inputs and outputs that connect it with the biosphere and modify the ones that are destructive.

>>476770
>If you do that, you would re-create the conditions for raising the capitalist profit rate. Because in economic terms this is turning back time to an earlier state of capitalist development where the ratio of capital to labor was still lower and hence the profit rate higher.
Fair point actually. Optimally we make the switch to communism before doing what I'm talking about here, but there is the risk of countries regressing back to capitalism benifiting from that. A careful stack of cards we have to work with here.
>bacteriological processing of oil ? What are you trying to achieve with that ? What makes oil a good fuel is the energy stored in the chemical bonds between hydrogen and carbon.
I've seen it thrown around, don't personlly agree with tt but I mention it because it's a hot topic. Basically people wanna make the oil no longer useful as fuel by putting bacteria down there so no one will wann pump it up or frack for it. Kinda seems unnessessary and could have unintended consequences like what you explain pretty well.
>If you want to make burning oil uninteresting you just need to create an energy source that's allowing civilization to maximize more entropy then what it gets from burning oil.
agreed

>>476772
>currently the reason why capitalism isn't growing is because of internal contradictions.
True, and I think these inefficiencies are largely the manifestation of those contradictions.
>The fuck does that mean ? My bicycle has rubber tires, my shoe-soles are made from rubber as well.
I mean the use of trucks and busses instead of trains, trams, ect.., though I get how you read it like that lol.
>A Tier 1 civilisation means mastery over a planet, which will probably require one or 2 more centuries of economic growth. How do you reconcile this with de-growth?
I guess I'm more looking at what is the rightkind of growth. It's not enough to just extract and consume the planet's resources, but to actually use them in a non-stupid manner that's actually useful to future growth. When you're drawing, somethimes you gotta zoom out, zoom back in and erase a thing or two, avoid doing everything all on one layer. Temporary degrowth is key to proper growth.
>I'm also not sure i understand the spaghetti metaphor.
Have you exer played a conveyor belt game like Satisfactory or the Create mod for minecraft? Conveyor belt spaghetti can really stunt growth.

>>476770
I am Eugene, so keep that in mind…

I see people who get into this "capitalism as psychic Landian egregore" as people who have become so fixated on abstractions and bad interpretations of German philosophy or liberalism that they lost sight of anything. It's basically Ingsoc shit, and once it takes root, you can't really say no to it. At some point these abstractions refer to something people actually care about. Anyone in business, anyone who has a going concern, is not a mindless actor chasing abstractions. I don't know why this idea is promoted so heavily, and really it is only in internet echo chambers that this is believed. Unfortunately, many people only have those echo chambers, and any time they contend with something substantive, there are agents ready to "correct" this brief sanity.

The idea that capitalists are dealing with the same abstractions as cloistered academics wishing to cajole revolution into existence, is misunderstand what is at stake, and why this situation exists in the first place. So far as "degrowth" has an actual purpose - and you have to bear in mind that depopulation and eugenics are in the past 50 years the overt policy of the ruling institutions and they will tell you this if you want to get anywhere in this world - the aim appears to be eliminating "zombie firms" which no longer serve any genuine purpose in managing labor and the wealth towards the aims that dominate in the present society. Capitalism is not a "mindless system", where the capitalist himself is an abstration unaware of the world he lives in, or the ideas that he is responding to in the market environment. From the start, the capitalist has aims that are not the system "for its own sake". That's what imperialism in the 19th century was - it was a belief that the disorganized market activity of smaller producers would be subordinated to the imperial mission and the large trading interests, and the affairs of corporate states like the East India Company take precedence over the interest of industrialists. The industrialists are not for the "capitalist system" - they hate being in hock to banks and spent great effort fighting the bank, until they could command the bank themselves and become the villain. This is one thing that was contested in the American Civil War - the slave power held the banks, and the new men and robber barons wanted to become the bank, for perfectly understandable reasons. There isn't a unicorn world where you have no bank and everyone sings a happy song like they're children on Barney and Friends. That is the nature of what it means to engage in economic life, and this is not particular to capitalism. Communist states and socialist states would have banks and centers of finance and management, because that is what it means to engage in any political-economic activity. It may be a more benign bank which recognizes the benefit of human freedom to act, but in all societies, there is a way in which economic life is reconciled with the state or the status quo in society. The hand of states in the past was looser, but the state's officers were always aware of the situation they were in. The Tsar of Russia and his court were not stupid men who were cajoled into a revolution by ignorance - it took Russia being ground down in WW1 for three years to bring about a liberal revolution, and part of this was an unwillingness of Nicholas to continue ruling under these conditions, against what the war would require him to do. It was also clear that Russia could not win that war - that they were being sacrificed as Germany gained the upper hand, even if the Tsar or the liberal government insisted they would totally win. The power of states and armies trumps any ideology or conspiracy of global elites in the final analysis, and nothing in Russia stops the German army from running roughshod over Russia in 1917. That's one reason why Lenin is really pro-German in the early USSR - he knows he's going to have to lick German boot to get out of this one, if he wants peace as he surely does. Anyway the point of this is that it is very easy for these abstractions to give way to the realities of war and politics. The abstract thinking that suggests you can deal with these things in the way that Malthusians do is the result of mental illness and a disconnect from anything we actually do in economic life.

Like I said, the main objective of degrowth, so far as it is a real policy, is to liquidate the failing firms which no longer serve a real purpose. They will tell you this and make that clear if you follow the news - you don't really need Sears or much of retail in the world where Amazon Fulfillment Centers are a superior option. You don't need a lot of old factories producing things which are no longer necessary or desired. To make new factories requires liquidating businesses which have property and interests tied to the old factory. The oldthinkers don't have any real force in the state now, and have been told to keep their head down and shut up, and what is happening is their liquidation from all sides. The center just relies on liberal smug and the imperial religion of eugenics. The left uses "degrowth" to push the center's interest. The right, who in the end will do what fascism requires, sells decoupling of the wage fund from capital, which effectively changes the payout for productive capital and labor to chits exchangeable for goods as the Amazon Company Store - basically, the Right's leaders are selling full economic slavery and maximal managerialism, and because the Right is a slave race - and they do see themselves as racial rather than national or societal, and races are always defined by their lowest common denominator - they are pushing hard the most miserable conditions possible. So you have a situation where the left and right and both pushing maximal depopulation and slavery positions, making the center the "default" choice. This is only possible with full control over society and policing anyone who says there is anything other than these three options - and it is always three options, following a model Germanic thought isolated and perfected to control history and set it to a preferred state in the mind of the slave race.

So to make this clear - degrowth/growth are red herrings. No one is convinced that in of itself is the point of contention. This is about shrinking the wage fund and shrinking any productive enterprise that meets the wants of the people, with the eventual goal of enclosing everything that isn't already taken. If you go along with it, you're going along with the "historical progress" of PR firms that want you dead, and you're an asshole. But, the real pushback is not this fake war, but everyone in society that has no interest in this program or watching everything they care about cannibalized for the sake of the ruling interest - eugenics.

>>476774
>Optimally we make the switch to communism before doing what I'm talking about here
If you lower what marxists call the organic composition of capital, you recreate the material conditions for capital accumulation. Even if Socialists controle the state and political institutions, that will very likely cause a regression to capitalism.
<The organic composition of capital, c/v, measures the difference between the rate of surplus value, s/v, and the rate of profit, s/(c + v) – the higher the organic composition of capital, i.e., the more capital-intensive the industry, the lower the rate of profit.
>Basically people wanna make the oil no longer useful as fuel by putting bacteria down there so no one will wann pump it up or frack for it.
The idea of "poisoning the oil-well" with a bacterial infection, will not work anyway, simply because no life that we know off can survive inside the conditions of an oil-deposit.

>I mean the use of trucks and busses instead of trains, trams, ect.., though I get how you read it like that lol.
The reason to prefer rail over roads is because it's got less friction and slower capital depreciation through wear and tear. However it is very unlikely that if we can do land transportation exclusively via rail system. If you want to extend good transportation to everybody you need to service low demand areas too, and i doubt that you can scale down the capacity of rail systems enough to make that viable. So cars and trucks will probably retain that niche.

>I guess I'm more looking at what is the rightkind of growth. It's not enough to just extract and consume the planet's resources, but to actually use them in a non-stupid manner that's actually useful to future growth. When you're drawing, somethimes you gotta zoom out, zoom back in and erase a thing or two, avoid doing everything all on one layer. Temporary degrowth is key to proper growth.
I'm gonna be honest with you this sounds like a Motte and Bailey debate tactic.
If you don't know what that is check out this brief explanation: https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=OaTNCkDgPR4
The reason i'm thinking this, is because you have boiled degrowth down to a more sensible investment strategy. Who would disagree with lets not do stupid things. But at that point it's pretty much redundant. I think that upholding degrowth will lend ideological cover to people who really do want to undo industrial society.

I think that there is a cause for industrial substitution. Meaning ripping out out legacy systems and replacing them with better tech on the basis of improving the ecological variables. But you have to line up the improved system before you yeet the existing ones. Given the amount of de-industrialization that has already happened, We can't take it on faith that once shit gets torn down that it'll get rebuild better. There appears to be a very powerful sentiment in ruling circles that seeks to impose austere living conditions on the general population. It has to be clear that the industrial system provides all people with stuff and comfortable habitation. We try to improve efficiency in the system but we're not rationalizing away quality of life.

>Have you exer played a conveyor belt game like Satisfactory or the Create mod for minecraft? Conveyor belt spaghetti can really stunt growth.
No, my computer is ancient.

>>476785
>I think that upholding degrowth will lend ideological cover to people who really do want to undo industrial society.
That's fair actually. A lot of what I said has been pitched to me as degrowth stuff, but perhaps there's a better term for what I'm going for here. Bookmarking that video, thank you for it. I've seen arguments that struck me something like that but I couldn't quite piece it together or put a word on it.
>No, my computer is ancient.
Ah ok. I remember having to put my old laptop right up to the air conditioner to keep it from cooking with a create focused minecraft modpack my friends would play. Probably why it broke down lol. (well it can run voidpuppy but I dunno how to use void.)

>>476790
>perhaps there's a better term for what I'm going for here.
Maybe the correct way to do these kinds of politics is to just describe the changes you want to see without giving it a special polit-brand-name. That way it's much harder to have your stuff co-opted.

But if I had to invent a term i would call it biosphere compatible industrialism.

>I dunno how to use void
search for void linux tutorial on YT

>>476792
>(…) without giving it a special polit-brand-name. That way it's much harder to have your stuff co-opted.
true
>biosphere compatible industrialism.
I like it
>search for void linux tutorial on YT
I'm always so stubborn to figure things out from the docs and wikis, but yeah if I'm getting stumped I shouldn't underestimate youtube as a resource.