A degrowth can be in consumption rather than population. We could use less plastic, less gas,...a lot less
zeca
joined 2 months ago
It does have autodelete, dont remember of its the default, but i think it explicitly offers you the option when you set it up
then you cant use your own wifi. Besides a jammer you need to use cable internet only.
Secret ballots are really important. There should be an effort into making in person voting more accessible and ending postal voting imo. Not american though, but i know my country historically had a very big problem of people being coerced to vote for certain candidates. The vote now is secret, spreaded all around the country and public transportation is free on voting days, which are on weekends.
Why? You think they don't do lobbying? Their cartels do constitute monopolies in my view
Right, not every firm is a monopoly. Bribing politicians is a necessary maintenance cost of keeping a monopoly. We agree.
I think thats not really a religious thought. Youre thinking and conjecturing things about the universe, and how life forms and matter all fit together in it. If you start worshiping this "greater energy" and declaring how things should be or should be done, then it would start to look more like a religion. Otherwise its just harmless conjecturing about nature.
You cant "cure" hunger, you have to keep eating
Of course. Im just saying i dont believe theyre scared because they know they will continue to have more than enough money for lobbying. Its probably very cheap in comparison to what they get out if it. Any business has necessary maintenance costs
I dont know if that indicates that theyre scared, its just part of the maintenance cost of their empires
I think you have a point. Although i dont have the knowledge to see for sure that there really is a viable path alternative to economic degrowth.
i agree that directly supporting degrowth would be unpopular, lead to conflict and maybe would benefit a movement towards genocide. Correct me if thats not what you meant.
The crack i see in this argument is that it seems to assume that economic growth and quality of life are correlated and that people see it this way. A movement towards improving quality of life in general would entail, i assume, a reduction of our working hours, a reduction in industrial production (as we produce a lot of useless objects just as an excuse to redistribute means of survival without changing the dynamic of the economic system). So a move towards better quality of life would naturally lead to a healthy economic degrowth (in some areas) that could be well seen by people. Maybe im fantasizing too much, but i hope not.