Talk:Degrowth

Removed newly added content that had been added to the lead

Hi User:Bbwilliams: I've just undone this edit. The content is not encyclopedic and has no sources. It's more like an essay. If anything, parts of it could be integrated into the main text perhaps (with sources!) and then perhaps be summarised in the lead later. The lead is meant to be a summery of what's in the main text:

+++++++++

Degrowth describes a cultural paradigm shift in thinking that is now escalating in the face of climate breakdown and ecosystems collapse. There are six key insights that are essential ingredients within a human mind, before that person becomes able to conclude that the ambition of global, equitable, economic Degrowth is in their personal interest. These are as follows:

i) Awareness that a reliable climate and healthy ecosystems are necessary for human wellbeing. Awareness that these conditions enable us to grow food, and ensure an adequate supply of fresh water for day to day subsistence.

ii) Awareness that our future will look nothing like our past. This requires an appreciation that our climate and our ecosystems have already diverged significantly from past experience. A recognition that the passing of climate tipping points means that this divergence from past experience is set to amplify at an exponential rate.

iii) Awareness that the previous Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum occurred over 20,000 to 50,000 years. Anthropogenic global warming is now escalating rapidly. This means that scale and speed of existential changes greatly exceeds anything experienced previously by life on Earth, far too fast for the evolutionary process to keep up.

iv) Awareness of the I=PAT insights which identify the key drivers of climate breakdown and ecosystems collapse, as population size, affluence and dependence on technology.

v) Awareness that our energy demands are constantly increasing, as anticipated through the insights of the Jevons paradox.

vi) Awareness that humanity are exceeding the carrying capacity of Earth by 300%. This risk is global and is now destabilising the global economy. A radical collaborative, equitable economic Degrowth strategy would soften the collapse and might, in time, redeem this chronic ecological debt to the extent that a fairly steady-state sustainable economy might be achieved. Thermal runaway is estimated to kick in at 3–4 degrees of warming above preindustrial levels.

At the time of writing (October 2023), an individual who has acquired all six insights will feel isolated. Their perspective is diametrically opposed to the direction of the herd. Humanity is still stampeding in the direction of economic growth. The biophysical collapse is being exacerbated by our frantic attempts to fix the problems that arise from economic growth with more economic growth.

It is frightening to maintain a worldview so contrary to that agreed by all our peers. We are social animals, we collaborate, and we look to our peers to agree our collective direction. Therefore, at the moment, the radical Degrowth mindset requires considerable courage for any individual to maintain such a worldview, despite the escalating evidence that we urgently need to change direction.

Thus, not only does the individual need to absorb the six levels of awareness detailed above, but they also need to have the personal self-confidence and courage to adopt a mindset that is diametrically opposed to the direction of the rest of the global herd.

The existing mainstream Degrowth movement has not yet publicly declared that shrinking the global economy is a prerequisite to redeem anthropological ecological overshoot, despite a mounting list of consensus that this reduction is urgently needed. For further understanding of how this paradigm shift will affect humanity's anthropocentric ethics and worldview please refer to this recent free article on Medium. Ethics, Ideology and Degrowth.

The remainder of this article reflects the evolution and thinking within the mainstream Degrowth movement to date. EMsmile (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have suggested to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics - Wikipedia that the focus of this article needs to be altered from the current definition to helping the reader to understand the nature of cultural paradigm shift. Degrowth is both an economic movement and a cultural paradigm shift. However, the reader will be better informed if they are assisted to perceive Degrowth thinking as a paradigm shift, and are guided towards the scientific insights that are driving the change in direction.

The links to the scientific insights are deliberately offered at the Wikipedia level, because that is more of a summary level then the original peer-reviewed research that is involved, which was often quite complicated. Bbwilliams (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that this particular paradigm shift is global, and extremely difficult for the average person to understand. It is also urgently needed to permit humanity to move away from ecocidal growth economics. The purpose of this suggested change is to help those who are already involved in the Degrowth movement, as well as people who are completely unfamiliar. This medium article will help you to grasp the importance of the changes that I am suggesting with regards to humanity avoiding near-term extinction. https://medium.com/@barbarawilliams1/ethics-ideology-and-degrowth-496dbe581819 Bbwilliams (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Please n that the order of attack would be like this: you would be adding content to the main text (but no WP:OR, everything needs to cite WP:reliable sources). Then if those additions to the main text are accepted, then a summarised version of some of those points can be added to the lead; see also WP:LEAD. EMsmile (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok - I have put something together with lots of reliable sources, but ideally it needs to go at the beginning. I shall set to and you can judge accordingly. Bbwilliams (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please also see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see my latest effort for discussion under the POV issues. I have created a Medium article detailing how we can cater for this very unusual situation and help our audience to navigate the necessary shift. It is free, but you will need to sign up to Medium. Bbwilliams (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see the edit summary: ‎User:Avatar317 has given this explanation for removing your newly added content (and I agree with them):‎ Reverted good faith WP:GF edits. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research. WP:OR. All statements must be sourced from Reliable Sources WP:RS Unless a source mentions the subject of this article: "Degrowth" than it is disallowed WP:SYNTH to relate it to this topic. Additionally, some of the added paragraphs are unsourced (See WP:V) and separately: "It is arguable that ..." is not encyclopeadic writing; we would have a SOURCE and state WHO argues that position.) EMsmile (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for this explanation. You are correct of course. Like I say, I am unfamiliar with the rules. My usual job is helping folks through the paradigm shift. I have a social science paper currently under peer-review. I should be able to make some changes when that comes through the review process, but that is likely to be a few months yet. I am just impatient to see some genuine mitigation commence. Thanks for your feedback on the photo, there is an issue with the licence, it was inexpertly added by a friend to Wiki Media. I must ask for it to be deleted.

I see that some of my changes to the introduction were approved, thank you. Bbwilliams (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

As a little more explanation, the optimum way to write Wikipedia articles (which can be written by ANYONE, not just experts in the field) is to read sources and then summarize them. (I like to read one source at a time, and add content sourced only to that source, before reading other sources to avoid the tendency that I have to write content which I read *somewhere* but then incorrectly recall the source from which I read those specific statements, which would lead to me adding accidentally unsourced content which would then be appropriately deleted.)

Another concept is WP:UNDUE, which I think is pertinent because you mention a paper you published; while your paper (if an overview of Degrowth) could be used as a source once published, in a subject like this with as many publications as exist, your paper ALONE should not be the primary basis for large portions of this article. (Unless it is recognized in the field as a superlative overview of the topic.) It might be acceptable to source a paragraph or two or several statements from your published paper. Just something to keep in mind. Thanks for your understanding; Wikipedia has many policies; but for good reason. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Image not suitable

Epitaph for Life on Earth - "It was Essential for Growth Economics!"

I've just removed this recently added image. I don't think it's suitable. Firstly, is it really under a compatible licence? Secondly the image, and its caption, is too much like a photo that would illustrate an essay or an opinion piece. EMsmile (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, now that I actually look at the picture. Wikipedia's Degrowth article should DESCRIBE the subject/concept/idea, not lobby for it. Thanks for removing that! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I have edited the first sentence to be more accurate. The original sentence ("Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development") had 8 references, which seems unnecessarily much and in addition, these 8 do not seem like the most representative to describe degrowth and the sentence only mentions GDP growth, which could lead to the common misunderstanding that Global South countries also need to degrow or that it only refers to GDP and not energy or material use.

In order to find more appropriate citations on the definition of degrowth, I looked at the top cited sources on “degrowth” in both Google Scholar and Scopus that specifically tried to define it, and changed the sentence according to them. The new references are:

1) Degrowth: a vocabulary for a new era, G D'Alisa, F Demaria, G Kallis (1561 citations - Google, not in Scopus but included as it is the highest cited in Google)

“The first is the criticism of growth. Next is the criticism of capitalism, a social system that requires and perpetuates growth.”

2) Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue, F Schneider, G Kallis, J Martinez-Alier (1543 Google, 644 Scopus)

“This article reviews the burgeoning emerging literature on sustainable degrowth. This is defined as an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term.“

3) What is degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement, F Demaria, F Schneider, F Sekulova, (1139 Google, 452 Scopus)

“Generally degrowth challenges the hegemony of growth and calls for a democratically led redistributive downscaling of production and consumption in industrialised countries as a means to achieve environmental sustainability, social justice and well-being.”

The revised sentence is as follows:

"Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the hegemony of economic growth perpetuated by capitalism, and calls for an equitable and democratically-led downscaling of production and consumption in industrialised countries as a means to achieve environmental sustainability, social justice and well-being." El-caragol (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

New review of the degrowth literature that is likely to be helpful

The academic article Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis? was just published, and would likely be very useful for improving this article. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it can be integrated in the criticism section. --PJ Geest (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Crossroads why not add it yourself? PJ Geest why say "it can be added" but not do it ?--Wuerzele (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Although very worth including in the critique section, I don't think this Review paper should be included in the overall summary of Degrowth (I tried to remove it, but maybe a refined critique in the intro would be more appropriate than outright removal). The review paper is undergoing intense debate within the Degrowth community and broader ecological economics communities, due to its unfortunately rather crude methodology. The paper and its authors also do not seem to display much familiarity with the Degrowth literature, but that is a personal qualitative observation.

Also, there is an additional review paper on Degrowth published in 2024: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923003646 Astro Reeves (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)