💾 Archived View for thrig.me › blog › 2023 › 05 › 08 › not-growth.gmi captured on 2023-05-24 at 17:51:59. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
gemini://szczezuja.flounder.online/gemlog/2023-05-07-Matrix-of-Convivial-Technology.gmi
Not growth is a negative, though there are traditions where what you have lost is important. However! Negatives may not be the best marketing strategy, especially in a culture that values positivism. The above link links to a PDF wherein a matrix is presented to help guide degrowth, or at least things to think about when deciding to do one thing or another, with nuance beyond the single-minded pursuit of increasing shareholder value.
A notable rub is between the techno-optimist and techno-pessimist positions in the degrowth movement (or wider society); the optimists believe that technology will save the day, while the pessimists point out that piling more technology onto a technology problem may not work out so well--Jevon's paradox, and etc.
Both are probably wrong.
The optimists have a bad track record of predicting world peace from a long list of new technology; here I quote from "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom" (Evgeny Morozov, 2011, p.226-227).
Speaking in 1868, Edward Thorton... hailed the telegraph as "the nerve of international life, transmitting knowledge of events, removing causes of misunderstanding, and promoting peace and harmony throughout the world."
Before long the public saw the telegraph's downside... it could also be used to spread false alarms and used by the criminals themselves."
The brevity of the telegraph's messages didn't sit well with many literary intellectuals either; it may have opened access to more sources of information, but it also made public discourse much shallower.
Does this sound familiar? The book then goes on to relate how the airplane, radio, television were all hailed as means to foster democracy, world peace, et cetera. That none of these technology caused the claimed results does not seem to bother the optimists, who doubtless are peddling something new and shiny that will result in world peace, no really, this time for sure.
The pessimists likewise have a bad track record of predicting doom! doom! over and over. I'm sure you can find examples. The most noteworthy point is that reality tends not to be so good as the optimists claim, nor as bad as the pessimists predict. Humanity seems to muddle along. A more relevant issue is that the problems (and benefits) aren't really evenly distributed. Hence the matrix linked to some number of words ago being a useful tool in assessing the impacts of some decision or technology or new purchase. How swiftly will this thing landfill itself? Who benefits? What are the drawbacks? Etc.