In 1972, a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a report that predicted how the fate of human civilization would develop if the economy and population continued to grow. The conclusion turned out to be quite simple: on a planet with nonrenewable resources, endless growth is impossible and will inevitably lead to disaster. Vice Explains How Researchers And Activists Plan To Halt Economic Growth And The Environmental Crisis By Cutting Down Working Hours And In-Store Choices - T&P Publishes Translation.
For the environment, against workaholism
We are used to thinking of economic growth as a boon, synonymous with prosperity. After World War II, it was the gross domestic product (GDP) that became the universal indicator of the general welfare of a country.
However, the pursuit of economic growth has led to many problems, such as global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions and the extinction of animals and plants. If the sensationally radicalized "New Green Deal" of the American Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposes to solve these problems by switching to renewable energy, then the supporters of the "slowdown in growth" went even further. Today, they deny the merits of constant economic growth and call for a significant reduction in the use of any energy and materials, which will inevitably reduce GDP.
They believe that it is necessary to completely rethink the structure of the modern economy and our unshakable faith in progress. With this approach, the success of the economic system will be measured not by GDP growth, but by the availability of healthcare, as well as the number of days off and free time in the evenings. This will not only solve environmental problems, but fight the culture of workaholism and fundamentally reconsider how we perceive the well-being of the common man.
Simple life
Promotional video:
The idea of "slowing growth" belongs to the professor of economic anthropology at the University of Paris-South XI Serge Latouche. In the early 2000s, he began to develop the theses formulated in the MIT report in 1972. Latush posed two fundamental questions: "How to set a course to limit growth if our entire economic and political structure is based on it?", "How to organize a society that will provide a high standard of living in a shrinking economy?" Since then, more and more people have been asking these questions. In 2018, 238 university professors signed an open letter to The Guardian calling for attention to the idea of "slowing growth."
Over time, activists and researchers have developed a concrete plan. So, after a significant reduction in the use of materials and energy resources, it is necessary to tackle the redistribution of existing wealth and the transition from materialistic values to a society with a “simple” way of life.
The “slowdown in growth” will primarily affect the number of things in our apartments. The fewer people will work in factories, the fewer brands and cheap goods there will be in stores (activists even promise to "slow down" fashion). Families will have fewer cars, fewer planes will fly, shopping tours abroad will become an unjustified luxury.
The new system will also require an increase in the public service sector. People will not have to earn so much if medicine, transportation and education become free (thanks to the redistribution of wealth). Some advocates of the movement are calling for the introduction of a universal basic income (necessary due to declining jobs).
Criticism
Critics of slow growth believe the idea is more like an ideology than a practical solution to real problems. They believe that the proposed measures will not greatly improve the environment, but they will deprive those who need it most of the basic food and clothing.
Robert Pollin, professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, believes that lowering runway growth will only marginally improve emissions. According to his calculations, a drop in GDP by 10% will reduce the damage caused to the environment by the same 10%. If this does happen, the economic situation will be worse than during the 2008 crisis. Pollin believes that instead of "slowing down", it is necessary to focus on using renewable energy and moving away from fossil sources (as suggested by the Green New Deal).
Perspectives
However, it seems that ordinary citizens can accept the "slowdown" much better than venerable economics professors. For example, according to a Yale University study, more than half of Americans (including Republicans) believe environmental protection is more important than economic growth. Sam Bliss, a PhD student at the University of Vermont's Department of Natural Resources and DegrowUS, believes the popularity of people like Marie Kondo (Netflix star offering to throw away all unnecessary things) also shows that people are concerned about their obsession with goods and consumption.
In addition, people realize that very few people experience the positive effects of economic growth.
From 1973 to 2013, hourly wages rose by only 9%, while productivity rose by 74%. Millennials struggle to find jobs, pay for hospital care and rent, even during periods of strong economic growth - so why should they hold on to it?
