Degrowth

1098 readers

8 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What to make of this new Abundance manifesto? (www.simonandschuster.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27088982

This book is creating quite a buzz. See the basics and one review among many.

People being what they are, there's no doubt that this is an election-winning agenda for the Democrats. And the authors are both very serious people. I'm reluctant to write off Ezra Klein, who IMO is not just very smart but also circumspect and fair-minded.

But all this also looks to me like an advanced case of deluded wishful thinking. Or of "cornucopian economics", as EO Wilson called it.

What to conclude?

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think Malcolm Harris had a very good review of it. I have not read it, but I listen to Ezra Klein enough that I think I know his pitch. I think the book is about 10 years behind the times. I'm glad it was published because it offers an opportunity for examination.

I think Klein is scared of the idea of degrowth, but might come around. I noted that he casually used the term "solarpunk" in an interview about a month ago in a mention of Lina Khan's belief that we don't need big tech to advance AI.

I'm more curious about the responses to this book than the book itself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Interesting. I share your general take so it's good to know I'm not missing something obvious.

TBH I'm finding it very hard not to psychoanalyze. EK is a super conscientious intellectual with two young children. He's therefore super invested in making his moral choices add up correctly. This insidious thought first occurred to me a couple of years back when he began emphasizing that the most recent climate forecasts are - surprise! - better than than the previous ones. (That said, I like to use this factoid when talking to complete pessimists, because mindless pessimism is a danger in itself IMO.)

he casually used the term “solarpunk” in an interview

Pretty sure I remember that and it pricked my ears up too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I have thought quite a bit about this.

I remember a week last year where Ezra Klein interviewed Hannah Richie, author of "Not the End of the World", and Adam Conover interviewed a guest whose name escapes me, but basically was arguing an opposite opinion to Richie. Conover had interviewed Richie only a week or two earlier, and so the podcasts created this fascinating split-screen.

Conover and his guest explored the thesis that we're in a cataclysmic crisis, and in such a situation we should be ready to shake things up. Call things as they are. Recent climate wins are nowhere near enough and demand MORE.

Meanwhile, Klein and Richie explored the thesis that we're in a cataclysmic crisis, and in such a situation we need to be very constructive in our guidance. Call things as they are, but don't create panic. Recent climate wins are evidence that change is possible even if they're nowhere near enough, so we should celebrate these as we keep negotiating for more.

These four basically agreed on all the basic facts. But whereas Conover and his guest were ready to rumble, Klein and Richie both quietly admitted to one another that they'd largely gone vegan out of recognition that this kind of change was necessary, but neither liked to talk too much about it for fear for being derided as radical or preachy. I have since joked that Adam Conover seems to be who Ezra Klein would turn into if he drank Dr. Jeckel's disinhibiting transformation potion.

That's where I think Klein is. I think he sees the logic in many things, but he's fundamentally an anxious, data-driving cynic who -- perhaps rightly -- recognizes that most revolutions fail, and those that succeed have plenty of case studies of producing terribly disappointing outcomes. So he tries to do what he thinks is reasonable.

I think he's an interesting bellwether for mainstream thought, and could be persuaded further to the left.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Interesting insight, thanks!

I do remember the interview with Hannah Richie and thinking something similar. After all this careful hedging about how we need to keep things in perspective and perhaps it's not so bad, she suddenly admits to personal behavior that suggests otherwise! But I definitely took her more seriously because of that.

I'd say EK is cautious rather than a cynic (tho perhaps the meaning of this powerful word is migrating). And honestly, I share his general temperament.

What really bothers me about EK is his apparent ecological illiteracy. Yes, we know that voters like economic growth. To the point that it might even be a prerequisite for democracy and individual rights (I suspect this fear is what is driving EK). But we also know that economic growth is closely correlated with ecological destruction, and that the dream of absolute decoupling is nowhere in sight. And that there will be no social progress left to protect with a biosphere in full breakdown. At this point these observations are pretty close to anodyne scientific truth. I expect doctrinaire orthodox economists to wave them away or ignore them - but so does this thoughtful vegan. I don't get it. Am I really smarter than Ezra Klein? For me it's an ongoing mystery.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

He's mentioned often what a hyper conscious over thinker he is. Have you seen the scene in The Princess Bride where Wallace Shawn is trying to guess which cup is poisoned? And he speculates what his adversary thinks he'll think they think he'll think they think? I think that's an example how at a certain point, it doesn't matter how smart you are. When you're trying to predict other people, logic only goes so far before it just breaks down.

Perhaps EK has considered what you've observed. But I think what he says has to be presumed to be through a tremendous filter. Hit him up when he's on a gummy and a glass of Pinot Noir and I bet he sounds like Carl Sagan or some shit. We can't really know, because he minds his words carefully.

Anyway, I like to listen to him, but I take everything he says in all that context.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Ha. Amusing. I haven't seen that scene but I know what you're talking about. Seems like a decent theory of mind for EK. What remains for me is the interesting paradox of being intellectually in awe of someone who holds what seems to be a transparently dumb opinion. Still, his voice is very nice to listen to. And that beard looks great too - such an improvement.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've only half listened to interviews about the book, but yeah, most of it seems stuff rehashed from what most of the left has been saying for decades and was always dismissed by people like him as 'unserious' and whatever.

I guess it's good they're starting to finally get there, but it's just so late.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The left has been talking "for decades" about degrowth? Or about accelerationist growthism? I'd say it's neither, they've mainly just talked about redistribution, with an occasional vague nod to "growing the pie" via "structural reforms", i.e. what The Economist wants (because then redistribution is not even necessary). Surely we can all agree here that nobody much in the mainstream public discourse is a fan of degrowth. Putting aside whether it's necessary or not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think you're confusing liberals with the left.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

If true then that would just make me American. But either way I still don't get your point, for the reasons explained.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

And another meta-review today, from Vox's Eric Levitz. Again, basically on board with the "Abundance agenda" as a sort of left-leaning Reaganism and election-winner. Which it no doubt is. The question whether it's sustainable in a world of fast-shrinking planetary limits is passed over entirely.