DIscussing degrowth

 So, Vaush had a video today discussing degrowth, and initially seemed critical of the idea but ended up liking the video he reacted to, and given the relation of the topic to my idea of human centered capitalism deemphasizing economic growth at all costs, I wanted to give my views.

I generally agree with the take that Americans are never going to accept a marked reduction in living standards. Actually "degrowing" the economy is a disastrous idea, and there's a reason I don't advocate for it. I mean, I know I have those models where if only we didnt grow as much starting in 1930/1938/1950, that we would be able to work less, but there's also a reason I never advocate going from $76k GDP per capita to like $40k. Because it would end up looking like COVID. And the people would riot at the idea of not going to fancy restaurants and amusement parks and vacations, and not accept that. They've grown accustomed to the existing standard of living. They would not accept less, even if their needs were met and it just meant fewer luxuries like not having someone wait on them hand and foot in a spa or something. 

The debate, IMO, is about how we should grow our economy from here. And I do think we should "take it easy" and not go balls to the wall growth at all costs. According to my projections, based on the previous century of growth, in 2120 or so, we can either work as much as we currently do, with a $320k GDP per capita, work a little less with a $240k GDP per capita, work a lot less with a $160k per capita, or work very little with our current GDP per capita. All of these scenarios have pros and cons. The $320k per capita one will represent the "best" living standard, but with all of the dysfunctions on modern capitalism today. The $80k one represents the equivalent of us pulling a north korea, where we are perpetually frozen in time but we work a whole lot less. And the ones in the middle represent something akin to what a lot of European countries do where they arent the biggest growers but you got the reduced work weeks, and the month long vacations, and parental leave, and you can tell your boss to F off and stop calling you after hours, and blah blah blah. In a sense you achieve a balance where you have your cake and eat it too. 

And another positive aspect to how I do so called "degrowth" (it isnt really degrowth but lets just pretend it is) is I insist on making it voluntary mostly. I generally just expect, with workers not under the force of wage slavery, to gradually just prefer to prioritize other things over work if not forced to work. Where people would rather be like you know what? Screw this, I want my 30 hour week, I want my month long vacations, I want to work from home. I dont care about efficiency, I just wanna do my thing and be left alone. And then growth would perhaps slump a bit, but as long as it remains positive, there wont be any major economic consequences, it just means we wont growth as much.

I mean, if people need to basically be metaphorically whipped like slaves by bosses to maximize that kind of output and people need to be subjected to wage slavery to drive it, is it worth it? Thats what I ask. Im not gonna be like "the government is telling you you cant go outside" like it's covid or whatever weird alex jones-esque conspiracy theory the right is thinking of ("you vill eat ze bugs"). I'm kinda just for removing the oppression of capitalism and letting the market take its course and be a pro free market. obviously, we must take care we DONT de grow as that would lead to recession and all kinds of negative consequences, but as long as growth is positive, even if a bit more stagnant, then is that the worst thing in the world? Well, that's for people to collectively decide. 

I do admit that environmentalists can use my ideas to achieve their goals too Obviously stopping rampant consumerism and growth at all costs is essential to stopping climate change long term. Given climate change is driven by human activity, particularly that of an economic variety, it seems obvious working less is good for the environment. But I'm not making the environment the number one goal here. As Vaush said, humans dont care about the environment and arent good at accounting for externalities like that. Even my psyche is subject to that behavior, and I know it. But I also recognize that my ideas could be used to motivate people to pursue environmentally positive choices anyway, simply by choosing to work and consume less, as production and consumption stop being so central to our lives. And that's fine. The economy exists for humans and our wants and needs, a society that exists for us to serve it is one in which we are slaves. I kinda just wanna free people from slavery here. That's my main motivation. The positive environmental impacts are just coincidental, although I acknowledge that I am aware of them. Perhaps my models could be used by governments and people of the future to scale down society to mitigate future environmental impacts.

And yeah. I just wanted to discuss how my ideas relate to this topic.