Degrowth

780 readers

5 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

MrMakabar

Slow the growth, save the world? Why declining birth rates need not mean an end to prosperity (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by MrMakabar to c/degrowth

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ODGreen 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I = PAT

Impact is equal to population times affluence times technology.

Decreasing human population can help to decrease impact, as long as the smaller population doesn't disproportionately increase its resource use (affluence x technology)

[–] xilliah@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Tech is culture dependent though. You could theoretically go below 1 if it's used wisely. For example vertical farms are less wasteful. But if course that doesn't help if you're buying a new phone every year.

[–] MrMakabar 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The buying a new phone is meant to be a part of affluence, rather then tech.

[–] xilliah@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Wouldn't I=PA/T be more suitable then? As tech increases it should decrease the impact of population and affluence.

Anyway, sorry for being such a smartass. Of course it could be reciprocal. I guess what I am trying to get at is that it sounds like people think tech is bad for the environment, whereas actually it's just our culture that's doing it in.

[–] ODGreen 2 points 3 months ago

Or, proper running water systems vs having to buy plastic jugs of water.

Certainly the formula can be sharpened but it's a decent heuristic for thinking about impact.