What if we stopped making so much stuff?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 05. 2024
- A growing portion of climate activists and policy makers argue that reducing global economic activity - or degrowth - is the only way to save the planet. But critics say increasing economic growth ensures human well-being. Who’s right?
#PlanetA #degrowth #overconsumption
Credits:
Reporter: Emily Leshner
Video Editor: Markus Mörtz
Supervising Editor: Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann, Michael Trobridge, Kiyo Dörrer
Interviewees:
Kai Heron, lecturer in political ecology, Lancaster University
Juliet Schor, economist and sociologist, Boston College
Zeke Hausfather, climate scientist
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
Read more:
Research on Degrowth:
www.annualreviews.org/doi/10....
"Degrowth can work - here’s how science can help" published in Nature:
www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
Chapters:
00:00 Can we end the climate crisis with less?
01:06 What is growth, anyway?
02:25 Where does this degrowth come from?
03:26 The decoupling debate
04:42 What could degrowth actually look like?
09:38 But is this ever going to happen?
Is degrowth desirable or achievable?
Enjoying personal relationships psychologically prevents us from consuming too much.
undesirable
This is a double edged sword. You might personally desire to live minimalist but then others will consider you weak and will try to take advantage of you. People will not appreciate your minimalist efforts and god forbid if you're in a thirld world country people there are too materialistic that they will be disrespectful towards you considering you a poor person.
This effect can also be applied on international stage. Imagine a country reducing its military expenditure in the name of environment while surrounded by warmongering nations. Similarly poor countries do not get the same influence on global stage as well, think of G7, G20, Security Council etc.
Thinking above scenarios why would an entity implement a minimalistic approach in such a wild world? We need to change our mentality towards money and material and we are far far away from there
There is no need for degrowth; instead, let's focus on efficiently managing our resources with what we have today! We should appreciate and enjoy what we have produced up until now, and consider discontinuing the promotion of new fashion models with updated tags that are unnecessary.
9:00 I think the fact that we need 5 Earths would answer this question. Soon it will be too hot to sweat. Eventually plankton will die off causing an oxygen poor atmosphere starting above sea level. This Earth will rebalance from a high energy state to a lower energy state.
When you think about it, much of the stuff we produce is completely useless and exists for no reason other than that someone figured out a way to sell it for more money than it cost them to make it. It’s insane.
It's not useless, it's GDP baby, make that doe grow.
you got me thinking about this 🤔🤔🤔
@@fulconandroadcone9488 Except the point of GDP is to act as a measure of the economy. It's a parameter, not a goal in itself. What's dangerous about obsessing about parameters is that you can start targeting the parameter for improvement rather than that thing it was trying to measure. Think, teaching to the test, where you stop trying to teach students how to figure things out for themselves and start just having them memorize factoids . . . If it's easier to do things that make GDP grow, but doesn't grow the underlying economy, then their will be strong temptations of expedience to do that.
@@Bustermachine GDP doesn't measure economy, it measures exchange of money. And if you assume higher GDP means better economy then you have incentive to make more money exchange hands, over inflate prices. My argument is not that you can't use GDP, it is that it is merely useless, it doesn't tell you anything or real value nor is safe from manipulation. The only thing it can really be used is to measure how much each economy can influence world markets. If you have money then you can spend it. That is about it.
It is far more important where that money goes.
Yes, and the more we automate tasks the more cr4p one has to sell in order to stay relevant and gain his place in the world
We need to ban planned obsolescence
Paradox in economics is the situation where the variables fail to follow the generally laid principles and assumptions of the theory and behave in an opposite fashion. 1:48
Albert Einstein Writes the 1949 Essay “Why Socialism?” and Attempts to Find a Solution to the “Grave Evils of Capitalism”
The political economy Einstein describes is one often lambasted by right libertarians as an impure variety of crony capitalism, one not worthy of the name, but the physicist is skeptical of the claim, writing “there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society.” Private owners always secure their privileges through the manipulation of the political and educational systems and the mass media. 2:29 [Open Culture]
A book called “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith lays down the fundamental principles of consumer capitalism. 6:29
Consumer Boredom: Boredom as a Subliminal Mood of Consumer Capitalism
Boredom enables a smooth functioning of such a system. Bored consumers buy more and are led by desires that promise to alleviate their boredom. Consumer capitalism is devoted to the fighting of the very boredom that it actively produces, amplifies, or invites in consumer socialization. By Mariusz Finkielsztein 7:03 [OpenEdition Journals]
Smith argued that the free-market system along with free trade would produce true national wealth, benefiting all social classes, not just the privileged few. 9:26 [Constitutional Rights Foundation]
We live in a throw away society. In the 1950's and 60's if you bought a Maytag washer it could easily be repaired and kept running for 30+ years. I recently had an appliance salesman say, no washing machines last more than 8 years now. Its how they're designed. This has to change!
Más productos públicos (ejemplo: "laundromats")
Buy the entry level top loading Speed Queen, it's an entry level commercial quality washer that is sold into the residential market in some retail channels. But any new Whirlpool/Maytag is crap built for maybe 6 to 8 years before failing. They are abominations.
Its because companies make parts n servicing costlier. Cheaper to buy new product instead. Same with clothes, they make less quality even the branded ones reduced their quality😢
We also need to get rid of competition, there is no point producing 50 different brands of smartphones that each compete with each other for markets.
Competition is not good for the consumers, it wastes resources. Co-operation is good for people, you are not consumers.
@@CHIEF_420 Du verstehst es 👍
We need an actual #RightToRepair! Companies are doing everything they can to make you throw away products that are completely fine with just a minor issue
Hell yea! So follow Louis Rossmann for more!
The political hurdles that would need to be over come are the biggest single issues we face but the principles of de growth are on the right track how we get there is regrettably some time in the distant future
"It's not just about stopping growth, but about increasing growth in sectors that benefit society as a whole"
Who decides what benefits people? The free people themselves or the government?
@@gregorymalchuk272 seeing how this video basically capitalwashed degrowth, which is an inherently anarchist movement, they probably mean whatever the government thinks is best for people.
For example: HOUSING. FOOD. Basic needs.
@@gregorymalchuk272free people. Abolish the government and capitalism will leave on its own, since it requires a government to enforce private property
@@gregorymalchuk272we should be the government
All consumer products need to be designed to be fully recyclable, and landfills need to basically become giant recycling bins that reuse close to 100% of their trash inputs for new products. Trash mining needs to become an industry.
Like the design principle of Cradle to Cradle
Recycling aluminium is quite big already isn’t it? But yes, you’re right lots of other stuff should be reused. Food waste into fertilisers etc
@@blank.9301I’m not the biggest environmentalist guy but even I feel like plastic bottles should be curtailed if not outright banned (except maybe for water bottles). Aluminum cans do the job perfectly fine and I’m pretty sure can be recycled almost indefinitely. And it would be a very easy way to remove a significant amount of plastic pollution.
Aluminum and glass are infinitely recyclable without loss of quality. Plastic is not.
Recycling should be a last resort, when reducing or reusing are not possible. Reducing the amount of stuff we produce and reusing things as much we can (including designing products for maximum durability and reusability) are the best ways to lower our collective trash output.
Reducing our impact on our planetary survival is not just about becoming minimalist it is also important to make products that are made to last and are repairable and easy to recycle without the input of excess amounts of energy.
🧂
It is quite complicated in some sectors that are bound to an ever increasing updating and innovation, like consumer electronics. We need to stop consuming electronics, we need to stop relying on the internet, on our washing machines, on our microwave ovens, etc… and part of that dependency is our obsession with individualism. Think that having a modern kitchen with all the appliances involved is just a crazy standard. If you visit Salzburg (Austria) and walk by Amadeus Mozart’s family house museum you’ll see that having a kitchen in the same house was a luxury only affordable by the wealthy families. Having a warm shower everyday was unthinkable just 200 years ago. Nowadays an average middle class person cannot (specially in countries like US) conceive life without a car. Seriously, a car is such a luxurious item, but we don’t even stop to think about it. We gladly pay the exorbitant price for one, because not having it means one is poor. Just take a quiet moment and think of it. The fact that we are able to mass-product items does not mean they’re less of a luxury in terms of resource consumption. In my humble opinion, having a roof over your head, three warm meals a day, having friends and a loving family, having a daily shower, having clothes and having the possibility for education are just priceless, everything else is obscenely luxurious
And products that have actual use case, actual need. We need to take out the market economy, market demand cant guide what is being produced. As that will simply lead to production of totally pointless stuff. We have limited resources, and the resources are ours.
Private ownership must go, as we have shared responsibility of the planet. But somehow we have private ownership of resources.
@fishy2939 ...and eventually that will be our Achilles heel
and our downfall.
I just today had a discussion how useless gdp actually is. It indicates nothing of value, you can be a country with highest gdp and still have an apsurde homelessness problem.
Just like the usa
All desirable outcomes correlate with GDP. Not always and for every country, but overall.
or spend their gdp on useless stuff like the american militairy.
What is the highest GDP got to do with having a homelessness problem? 😂
That's exactly the concepts of consumerism and growth
A thing that my teachers always said was that GDP doesn't mean anything if it isn't distributed. You can have a country with amazing GDP, but with income inequality. Which means that actually only a few are living good lives.
In the most recent survey the inequality gap of income in the population is the best indication of how the country is really functioning. The larger the gap between the have and have-nots leads to the decline of all life’s basic needs for a huge majority of the people. Out of the 167 countries surveyed, South Africa came bottom of the list. GDP is irrelevant to the poverty and despair of the have-nots. If spending is not specifically allocated to improve the infrastructure of the country, nothing will improve.
Your teachers are communists or socialists. Communism and socialism do not work.
Living in a studio I don’t have much stuff. I love it, no clutter and living low budget. I could move easily if needed and am not attached to anything material.
You traded dependency on materials to dependency on services, nothing to be proud of
@ingvar1996 I am the same. Makes life a lot easier to live simply
@@ironman8257 I mean, yes and no. Your hoard of stuff usually don't make you less meaningfully dependent on services. And I say that as someone who is declouding and de-subscribing as much of his life as possible.
@@ironman8257 I am not dependent at all. Plenty of budget to buy anything if needed and free to move. whenever I want.
It's both, actually. Even for someone who has STUFF like I do, I'm quite careful about how I accumulate my stuff. I do my best to avoid the annual or semi-annual product cycles, I buy things when I need to replace them and only if they're reasonably sustainably made and (Ideally) will only have to ever buy it once.
I think they key to degrowth + a good standard of living isn't to say "A pot in every kitchen" or what have you, it's definitely people getting the goods they need in a form that's both pleasing and durable enough that they ideally never have to buy them again.
I think its also rethinking a lot of modern luxuries. For example, i live in an apartment complex with 136 households. They all have their own laundry machine. A lot have their own tumble dryer. A lot have their own tools.
Where have all the shared utilities gone? Why not share the washing machines in blocks like this? It saves on space, materials and cost
@@tjeulink perhaps it has to do with the busy lives people tend to have in the modern world, there isn't much time, I've found, to keep waiting around for other things to fit into your schedule anymore.
it's dope that you're thoughtful about that kind of thing, but the needed change is more on the side of resource extraction/manufacturing/packaging/distribution than on consumer discrimination, imo.
Only get a new phone or laptop every 3-6+ years too
@@tjeulinkthat’s nice and everything but shared/public ownership comes with its own problems. Namely, lack of responsibility.
If an apartment complex has 100 rooms and only 10 washing machines people are more likely to just move to one that does work and not do anything about the broken one. And so on and so on until they’re all broken.
Basically the first question we ask each other upon meeting is, What do you do? Our answer to that question, our material status, is often what determines who and what we get access to in life. Our identities have been forced to be built on our material success. We would have to allow people to have identities and lifestyles that differ from conventional models of material success, in order to make changes for greater sustainability.
👏 Very well said
Stop asking other people what they do. Sometimes it's the least interesting question you can ask.
true, I don't like to wear nice clothes because I don't need to (I thought), but most people treat me based on what I wear (for real!). now, I'm careful about what I wear. in some part, I buy things to define how I want to be treated by others. it's silly, but that's the reality.
Because access to resources= power. Good luck trying to change human nature
I needed to hear this. I thought I was the only one on this planet that recognizes our world I inefficient, lacking in compassion, and the world is being destroyed as a result.
Many people see that, we just can't do anything about it😢
The main reason why people are obsessed with material things is because they feel lonely and unhappy.
They try to fill the hole in their hearts with material things,to keep the darkness away.
It never works for long.
People need friends.
When you find them,you realize how little you need to be happy.
Personally I prefer the concept of A-growth, agnostic on growth. If you pursue other indices of well-being and sustainability, then in a sense it doesn’t matter whether growth or degrowth occurs overall. An amazingly succinct video by they way, well done DW! You’ve captured the nuance beautifully. Actually, what we need to frame this is greater human rights and rights for nature and future generations. Corporations should not be legal persons. Law is the first step, then come the policies.
Hey there! Thanks for your comment! You could also be interested in our video tackling green economy and the question of putting a price tag on nature 👉 czcams.com/video/MSxIBYOMQOU/video.html
@@DWPlanetA thank you!
About a year ago, I realized that consuming less was the best way I could do my part to reduce my carbon footprint, and I've tried to apply that goal in every part of my life. I hope your video encourages more people to do the same
kudos to you! it's important for us to do our best to shift our own behaviors since we all collectively make up society!!
but that's not the only solution and it shouldn't fall exclusively on us. we should be demanding the same changes from companies and politicians
90% of my energy use is from renewables, all my possessions would fit in a cube van, I don't own a car, and my phone is 6 years old. If I reduced my carbon footprint any further I would be dead.
Just so you're aware, 'carbon footprint' is nonsense literally invented by BP oil in order to shift attention away from corporate responsibility, to individual responsibility.
Individual people will literally never be able to reduce their 'carbon footbprint' enough to counteract the giant, global, megacorporations that pollute and drain hundreds and thousands of millions of tonnes of vital resources in order to increase profit.
It is literally impossible for individuals to have enough of an impact to counteract these heavyweight polluters. It is only through collective action and legal enforcement that we can hope to shift the tide and actually create an impact that will have a positive effect.
@@xjohnny1000 Nice.. I try to do the same. My phone is from 2016.. but it's really dying now. I try to replace it with a Fairphone. Yes a Fairphone is more expensive, but its more fair for the world and nature. Also I try to use this phone for 10 years again. And easier to repair.
@@xjohnny1000 teach me your secrets, please
What is daunting is the fact that when and if any regulation about “de-growth” comes into practice nobody is gonna be willing to give up their privilege, their status, their comfort, etc
Can you tell me WHO enjoys having to buy a washing machine every 4 years when the "old" one breaks down?
@@Rig0r_M0rtis no one, but unfortunately not many people enjoy spending more money on more durable appliances even if they can.
On the other hand, not many people fancy a business model, where you pay constant monthly fee for a device and producer is incented to make products durable and repair them instead of replacing, even if in the end it would be cheaper than replacing broken stuff every 4 years
@@qj0n Dude have you been buying appliances lately? Right now more money spent just means more electronics and functions involved, not more durable or repairable.
@@Rig0r_M0rtis Yes, full new kitchen. While we can be sure only after several years, the rules are more or less the same for at least decade (and even then people used to say that 'now everything breaks quickly', but as turned out, some rules were visible).
Firstly, you can see differences in durability between brands, but inside of brand, price is mostly a matter of size and features. If some company wants to build both more expensive and cheaper devices, they create two brands (like Whirpool who has a dozen of brands).
Secondly, the same brand has different devices for sales in supermarkets (mostly used by typical people) and another in dedicated appliance stores, used mostly by architects and interior designers. If you compare them, you can see some additional letters in model numbers and stuff like different gasket or hinge
Of course to know that you either have to spend a lot of time on research or pay an expert, so again - quality requires money
Then climate change will force a much more horrific form of degrowth on it. These are our two choices.
I'm a stay at home mom for almost 28 yrs,.of course my kids are grown but my argument was always that the more money (we) I had/made the more I'd (we'd) pollute! No point in that and my daughter's a biologist and my son is a nurse!🎉
What really makes me angry is all the advertisements we are getting bombarded with. The worst ones don't tell you any actual information on the product, but manipulate your feelings. Selling you good feelings or threatening bad things if you don't buy. Just had an ad on some backpain medication, which is probably another mix of paracetamol, ibu and aspirin. And it was mainly selling having a good time. This makes me 🤮 and furious. How many human time and recourses goes into lying and manipulating instead of designing educational resources on exercises that can actually help with backpain.
Hey there! We did a video on the marketing techniques of brands. Check it out here 👉 czcams.com/video/mkDVC_izIV0/video.html
Yes the advertising of most products work on a mixture of fear or inferiority plus the gratification of buying owning yet another product whether you really need it or not and hurry hurry hurry sale ends on Sunday hey sales are now continuous rolling over rolling on week after week we have succumbed to being persuaded day after day night after night ….
GDP also erroneously measures utility.
Say you ride public transit in the EU and you spend $60 a month on that going everywhere you wanted to go. You've contributed $60 to your GDP.
Say you drive even a Prius instead. Over 8 years in the US we've spent on average ~$500 a month, divide this by the 1.6 people average utilization of cars, so contributed $312.5 per person using it to GDP.
Since both of these satisfied the utility of transportation they have the same utility, but one is considered 5.2x more valuable by GDP.
Think of all the cafes and nice things that would return to society if people weren't house and car poor.
Back when houses were affordable they use to have these things called roller skates buildings where people could hang out. These things went out of business because cash strapped America sucks.
Actually we can, but those who are into stuff's business gonna need to know & understand the true alternatives which majorities are not aware about till now or not completely aware i.e all due to lack of awareness of different kinds ! ☝️👍
I have kind of always been minimalist since I was born to such parents. Not only did it help me become financially better but it also helps me stay happy whilst being able to take care the environment. For me a decluttered home is important, although I don't excel at it but having less helps me manage it better. Really thinking if you need something before you buy it, HELPS. My only pet-peeve is books which I feel like I should just open a small library or something to help me manage it better :)
That’s something I started to think to myself a lot when going to stores. I see so much stuff in the shelves, and I wonder “how fast are we exhausting Earth in the process?”
If we don't do it soon, it will be done to us, rather than by us.
It's happening already. As we get poorer we are forced to rationalize our purchases.
Instead of degrowth, we should call it degarbagezation.
That's the error many of us think, it's not just stop buying things, it's the increasing population and it's future basic needs of food, energy, transportation, etc
@@weird-guy Whatever you call it... The people that are financially dependent on it's failure will drum up a marketing campaign of fear and ignorance. Presenting a distorted version what your actual argument is.
You can go out and test this by asking people. If they believe men and women should be treated equally. You will probably get ~95% of the people saying they think Men and Women should be treated equally, but If you asked people if they are a Feminist... probably between 50-65% will say that they are... and It's the same damn thing.
You call it "sustainable consumerism" they will redefine it as "forced commie-sumerism" (or some other BS name) and claim that it's really about Lizard, illuminati people trying to redistribute the wealth though eco-terrorism... A campaign bound to work on at least some of the 49% that suffer from being remarkably "below average" when it comes to intelligence.
Or just be honest, and call it a decline in the standard of living.
or dejunking
We can easily cut down on the following and it costs us nothing.
1. Meat & seafood
2. Food waste
3. Fast fashion
4. Fast furniture
5. Updating cars regularly
6. Updating mobile phones
7. Paper
8. Useless Christmas presents
9. Plastic bags
10. Plastic bottles
I'm in the process of getting rid of stuff. None of it makes me happy. It actually gets in the way of peace. I have to care for the stuff and if I have it I feel obligated to use it.
Less is more for a person. Beyond that, I couldnt care less.
There's certainly physical objects that I desire having in my life. But it's the difference between those things I truly value and the things I am told to buy.
this video is a great, non partisan look for any beginners on this topic! it covers the basics really well! I think this video should be shown in schools.
It's also about how stuff is made. I think everyone will agree that it's completely ridiculous to have smartphones, but the manufacturers make it as difficult as possible to replace the battery. This is low-hanging fruit and should've been addressed a long time ago.
Imagine buying a car and when it's time to replace the battery, they have to dismantle the whole car and it works out to be cheaper to buy a new one...
Actually I disagree that smartphones are bad--I'd even argue that smartphones as a concept are the biggest single democratizing global agent we've ever seen. Combined with the internet political movements of lower class people have multiplied and it allows for you and I to learn about how different things can possibly be by listening to people 8000 miles away.
Now, I'd agree that consistently changing your smartphone to the newest model and making that a point of sociocultural/economic mobility? Fuck no we need to slow down the pace with which smart phones are turned in for new ones. This is a two sided problem where both producers need to make more lasting products AND give consumers rights to repair and also consumers need to plan to use phones for 3 to 5 years minimum before looking to upgrade.
@@afreaknamedallie1707 They didn't say smartphones are bad. They said designing smartphones as a throw away item that dies with its battery is bad. And while I wouldn't say the smartphone itself is intrinsically bad, it does have good potential, but as it is presently implemented, it's potentially the most effective surveillance and propaganda device humanly possible.
It's always with you. It's camera and microphone are not actually under your control. It's pinging your location continuously. Feeding everything you look up or look at with search functions into databases owned and operated by large platform that treat this information as proprietary, supporting an inherently unequal system of information distribution where social media giants know more about you than you'll ever know about them. And then disseminating that information to other companies so that they may optimally manipulate you.
@@afreaknamedallie1707 Phones also replaced a ton of other gadgets that don't need to be manufactured anymore, like fax machines, vcrs, walkmans, etc. My phone is is 6 years old and Apple says they will replace the battery for $80. Sounds like a pretty good deal for a device that's more powerful than my desktop pc from not too many years ago.
@@xjohnny1000 right? Like the further along we get and the more apps and things that can be done on a phone the closer it becomes to star trek technology 😅 and its more energy efficient and raw materials efficient, even factoring in the high costs of battery metals mining.
I like so much that alternatives are being put on the discussion table regarding some key points in Agenda 2030 (SDG) are not being achieved (actually roughly 25% of SDG have been reached). I think the current system is not working anymore, we witness the deep troubles at all levels (social and economic injustice, environmental damage, et.) daily and Its urgent look for another types of organization and really sustainable production model. Perhaps, degrowth is a possible way and it sound so logical regarding moderate production and consumption, respecting the planetary boundaries and seeking human wellbeing.
Congrats DW for the breathtaking documentary.
Go to any shop, and look at how much needless, cheaply made interior decor there is. These constant 'trends' see people replacing items every three or four months, and what happens to the old stuff? Either its off-trend so no one wants it, or it's already falling apart and only fit for landfill. And I actually want to cry when I see how the gardening aisle of most shops is now 90% plastic flowers and fake turf 😭
When it became clear to me that our civilsation had a lot of things very wrong and wasn't going to change fast enough or at all I decided to downsize massively over a few years to get me ready to build and move into a very small but very functionally designed space, with some common sense choices my living expenses are 1/4 what they were and I miss NOTHING, literally not one thing I got rid of over those 2 years. It has opened up a lot of free time not spent of stressing about a lot of crap that just should not exist. But it does, because money. It has way to much power over our species and ruins everything it touches eventually.
I'm in the process of doing this myself!
The profit motive incentivizes producers to make things that break and/or fall apart very quickly so you will be forced to buy more. It’s extremely difficult to regulate this.
Most people work to buy all that stuff and go into debt doing it. Worsdworth wrote, "Getting and spending we lay waste our powers, there is little in nature that is ours".
So my family went back to nature. I have very little clothing and two pairs of shoes. My entire wardrobe fits into a backpack. We go backpacking and on trips instead of going into debt and collecting stuff.
We also grow food and raise livestock instead of watching television. I'll buy stuff if it helps us achieve a more natural way of life. Like LED grow lights for our indoor garden room that lets us grow food indoors all year long, because climate change cut our crop yield by 50% when grown outdoors.
Degrowth is going to happen whether we want it to or not. People who deliberately stay out of debt and live a minimalist lifestyle as food producers should be able to weather the changes. Like the toilet paper "shortages" during the worst of the pandemic. We don't even use toilet paper so that was a non-event to us. There are sustainable alternatives for good hygiene, for food, for cleaning products, for entertainment, for clothing, for transportation, and for housing.
It's impossible because of peoples broken minds nowadays. Any attempt of making/consuming/wasting less is an "attack on an individuals freedom".
I believe that degrowth is possible. I am a minimalist. I buy almost no goods. I buy services - like the services of an acupuncturist or a chiropractor. I buy food grown as biologically and locally as possible (in Canada that means no fresh fruit or veg in winter, so I do buy some fruit and veg grown in the south during the winter months). I believe that everyone can buy less 'stuff' - this is quite easy to do and can feel refreshing and freeing. The less we spend on stuff, the more we have to save and buy quality organic food or save to retire and live freely and well.
We can learn to appreciate experiences - like walking in nature, sitting in a garden with a friend, singing with a group of people - rather than objects. We've taken on the belief that things will make us happy, given to us largely through advertising - by which we are bombarded since the 1950's. So, two or three generations now have learned to equate buying things with feeling good. It's powerful, but we can change this.
I often think that if everyone drove 50% less than they do, we'd have 50% less car emissions. If everyone buys 50% less stuff, we'll have 50% less emissions and pollution from the making of things. It will impact GDP numbers. So what? We're already in crisis. Let's explore the possibilities of doing things differently.
Thanks for making this video!
If we all used 50% less but the population doubled...which it has done in the past few decades...
@@davidebalestrini8857Nothing, 😊 Economy will take care about them. We as a individual consumers must focus only on our side of a bargain.
If you don't buy useless stuff, people whom make that stuff don't get money. And after while they have to change and start making useful stuff or bunkrupt.
@@TomNook.well, then we have to focus on education. Because it seems as in countries with better education, families have less children.
@@davidebalestrini8857 😉 Two thing I have learned about life:
There's nothing like 100% certainty in live and suffering is important part of life.
But it's interesting when I think about how industrial revolution changed our perspective on how we think about what "Job" means to us.
Has to be "Job" necessarily tangled with production of things?
What you are calling for is better stuff instead of more stuff. And that also increases gdp. You don't just have to have more stuff to increase gdp. You can have better stuff. A tree turned into a cheap chair doesn't add as much to gdp as a tree turned into an expensive designer chair, for instance.
Degrowth is achievable if people are positively inspired to change their habits with eco-friendly replacements. E.g. more and more woman are inspired to use the reusable menstrual products, because they heard a friend or family member being super happy with it. If someone would've just told me it's bad for the planet to use regular period products, i'm not sure i would've changed it so quickly. Positive examples work better than negativity i think.
exactly! A cultural shift is required. currently, in this culture, having more stuff is seen as positive, but if we changed our mindset and raised our children in a different culture, it wouldn't be hard to accept a life with less material items
Excellent video!
I believe now is the time to demand that cities & counties only allow new businesses that: resell, repair, repurpose, recreate, or help people to locate any used item they need.
I am glad to see this channel is not selling swag like T-shirts and coffee cups. It is surprising how many channels that talk about sustainability promote conspicuous consumption by trying to sell you stuff you don't need but will let virtue signal through showing material goods.
We need to redress our human behaviour at the very private level.
My grandfather grew up during the depression. Pretty much his whole life. He did not buy buy "junk" as he called it. (Stuff that he knew he did not have a need or use for.) He never really had a lot of money, but was someone that got the most value out of what he had than anyone I have ever known.
Moving out of my parents house into a little apartment was the first time I remember looking at all the stuff I had bought as a kid thinking... What is actually useful, and what is just taking up space?
Since then I have actively tried to avoid buying stuff that I don't actually see myself actually making good use of.
Degrowth is a finality, whether we want it or not, but for the quantity of stuff we have (that we have now, not that we buy each day) I don't think it's the problem. If we look at houses before WWII, they were fouuul of stuff. because acquiring new stuff was hard, so we kept every piece of stuff that could be reused or recycled. If we could (politically it's gonna be a nightmare, but) make it worth it to repare everything that is supposed to serve in the long term and reduce (make it less common and harder to get) or give a second function (composting I guess?) to every one-use item, we will not change our lifestyle completely, just put more time on things that are worthier... Reducing the hours per week we work, if it can give people time to think about what they really need and time to organize their stuff, to know what they have, what could be reused, what can be given to people who need it, why not? But we first need to address poverty, if not, people will want to work more, just because they'll need the money barely to survive. And why not change the way people earn money at first? Well, it's complicated.
That is such a great, informative piece of journalism! I did a presentation on the same topic in business class just a couple of weeks ago and your video makes some great points about the topic. Thank you very much!
For the bottom 50% in North America, real wages have been stagnant for decades. So half the people in North America are already in a degrowth situation.
This is why i LOVE DW so much ❤
I have been told often as a kid, "You can achieve anything you set your mind to". Maybe if us humans set our minds to improving the quality of life on earth we can do that. Choose quality over quantity.
Repairing rather than replacing needs government level intervention to place regulations and laws, as most of the industries and companies do not support the right to repair. They do everything in their power to get the consumers to buy a newer model, trade in schemes rather than opening up for repair.
The third party repair shops are closing down because of the manufactures like Apple, Samsung, LG etc and even all most all vehicle manufacturers (any industry you can think of is affected) placing restrictions on component and parts sales, not releasing product diagrams and schematics making it impossible and diagnose and repair DIY or by a repair shop.
They used to give you these diagrams and schematics in 70s 80s and people enjoyed working on their stuff.
Sales and Profits are made priority and greenwashing is the game. As long as consumers do not make a stand to push their regulators, nothing will change.
As long as consumers pay for what ever that's not sustainable nor ecological, this planet will continue to rot while we enjoy our short-lived creature comforts.
We can't grow forever, so mind as well start planning before we lose all the life sustaining resources.
I always had a question about how the economy chart has to grow all the time, while people living in the country suffering due to mental and economic conditions, how that country is called successful with facilities which only is good for minority of rich people. I had an example in mind of Japan as people are dying of overwork and always working while their GDP is growing, and US as well. Does it have to grow? can't it be just balanced while mental growth of society is achieved all together?
(well it's me thinking only)
Excellent ! These questions must be widely spread.
I have loads of stuff because when I buy something it will last for less than 5 years and even if it would last it might not even be compatible in 5 years because they have change the system so that it doesn't support old stuff. I blame the damn greedy companies because I would rather pay 2 times more for a product to get back the good old 25 year guarantees that I still remember from my childhood. Its the whole concept of making stuff to last only for 6 months if you want to have high end, 1 year for middle quality and after 2 years some component was designed to fail or then you could make a similar looking thing out of wood and have as much use of it.
If the idea is to sell as much as possible every year to completely empty the companies every year then the products will be designed to support that greed. Back in the day companies saved money for a rainy day and created products of quality because their goal was for it to last for 10 or 20 years.
My point is that doesn't matter what consumers do it is and will always be the greedy companies that has to change back to quality production instead of maximize profits designs that are made not to last for too long.
When you start to argue, do you really think we need 6gb of updates on a phone with a 8gb max storage when it was working fine with 2gb of software? They could support the systems for 10 years easily but that doesn't sell more phones. They could use parts that last for longer but that again doesn't sell more. They could give you control over your device but then how will they force you to buy more?
Greed, greed and once again greed. Give me the old 20+ year quality stuff and I will buy it.(back when computers came out I paid ~3000 euros for it but I had it for 10 years and only did some memory upgrades to keep it working as a gaming rig, last 2 years it wasn't able to handle the newest games because they didn't support it). Even a outdoor grill rusts in less than a week without rainfall... .... ....
certainly desirable and achievable. but many will disagree as they may loose some bits of comfort they may be used to in favour of overall better situation worldwide. and because its such a long-term goal, many have problems to even imagine it or even take it into account as they will not be here once the results become significant enough to say it was worth it.
Great presentation on a problem that's so very real, yet not on the minds of most people
The essential characteristic of capitalism is the motive to make a profit. 1:00
For Marx, the more the process of accumulation advances in capitalism, the more concentrated and centralised capital becomes. 1:01
Capital concentration is where the ownership of capital becomes less diversified, and in the hands of a smaller and smaller group of big funds. 1:11
The marginal product of labor is the additional output resulting from hiring another worker. 5:23
The increased production that a company experiences when it includes an additional unit of capital is known as the marginal product of capital. 5:32
I think introducing a new metric that people can get behind and hold their politicians accountable to is the right direction. Thing is, such metrics already exist: ratio of median salary to median home price, gross employment rate (fraction of all working age people that are legally employed regardless if they are registered etc), plastic bottles per Capita, coal/oil per year per Capita, etc.
The most important question that this video does not address is what determines the metric that we discuss when evaluating progress? Is it the preference of news Giants? Or the rhetoric of political campaigns? Or something else? To get to real action, it would be really useful to know what constitutes there foundation of this discourse
Hey there! You could be interested in our video on green economy/putting a price tag on nature. Check it out here 👉czcams.com/video/MSxIBYOMQOU/video.html
Degrowth will not be achievable. If we really want to avert a climate catastrophe, we will have to take real measures like: stopping recreative flying, rationing the amount of clothing per person, forbid the sale of yakuzis - and so on. Each of these "real measures" will be met with the harshest opposition, if not right out civil uprising. People just want be richer and richer, fly further and further, and so on. Sure, we care about the environment! But that is a problem of the governement isn't it? They just have to use their magic wand and make that climate problem go away.
Now, we are really not willing to change our lives, but in the end we are more than willing to kill each other for the last scraps of water and food that are left.
I don't buy things I don't need
Yes you do
@@marlonscloud One generations luxuries are the next generations necessities.
"Degrowth" is actually a sign of a successful country e.g. Japan, some of Europe. The problem is the population - it's constantly growing. These additional people need stuff- even at a base level, that means more food, water, fuels.
Until the world talks about population as the problem, humans will continue deluding themselves
Most people see Japan as a depressing place because it doesn't growth. People are addicted to useless stuff, this is mainly a mindset problem.
@@weird-guy yep, people like to buy, and this is why durable products aren't so sucessful. They want new things frequently, even if they don't need them. This frivolous mindset will be our hell.
I remember I visited my aunt. Her house was full of stuff, and she hardly had space to walk around her house. It made me stressed out instantly-most of the things she doesn't need.
Hoarding disorder, my mom is the same way. She has 7-10 of something she only needs one of and she is beyond disorganized, so when she can’t find something she just buys another
Excellent analysis!! With regards to 'Degrowth', There are lots of less radical things we can do, but continuously failed to address.
1) Increase tax on 'extream spending' such as private jet use, and use that tax revenue for improvement of public transportation, etc.
2) Channel climate funding projects in developing countries towards public transportation projects and people friendly urban development, rather than only focusing on renewable energy projects. Impact of successful public transit project can address all three pillars of sustainability very successfully.
Hey there! You might want to check out our video tackling the effect of rich lifestyles on the climate 👉 czcams.com/video/PvPlCr_fPSA/video.html
I recently heard about a company that went under because it’s product (some kitchen appliance) was too good, people didn’t re-buy enough for them to survive.
What is survive?
That has less to do with the quality of their product and more to do with bad marketing, Or overall business management. There are plenty of brands out there making high quality “buy it for life” products and they survive because they are always finding new customers.
what company? what product?
Can't wait for us to get to Mars so DW Planet B drops
Superb video! Almost everything I think summarised🎉
Less is always more.
Most of the advertised items there’s no intrinsic need for it, it’s even more pervasive when they air prescription drug commercials. We’re more of the product of the items we consume than individuals.
Well done DW. I am happy you are educating people about this. Our system is broken. We need big change!
Should be possible to "degrowth." We'll just have to do away with companies mass production of stuff and their planned obsolescence ways... which is not going to make them happy at all, but honestly they could fall in the deepest pit on earth.
We as people need to get together and prioritize our local farmers, businesses, and ged rid of splurging on things that aren't necessary
Local farmers and business are SIGNIFICANTLY less resource-efficient than big companies, and also aren’t able to innovate (developing green technologies, energy efficiency etc…) due to their lack of human capital and economic capital.
We had a system for this but the depression and lobbying destroyed it for the sake of people keeping jobs which was good for the time but now it's not working very well. We need items to last, We need items to be built when we need them and not stocked on a shelf in the hopes someone will buy it. Those items will eventually just get tossed if no one does. It will take longer to get those items but it's better for the planet. Repairing an item instead of buying a whole unit should be mandatory and made affordable. The repair item should never cost more than the whole item being repaired. Company scalping in that regard should be illegal. Organic items can be composted so its not terrible for them to go to waste from stocked shelves if they aren't packaged in one time packaging.
I've always believed that the world should produce modular recyclable stuff like modular package and modular furniture. Yet I haven't seen any environmental efforts of that.
GDP is very bull. GINI is much better indicator & even that is only financial which doesn't account for many of the things mentioned in this vid that are very important.
I think there should be law on manufacture companies that "the manufacturer company itself is responsible for decomposing/destroying the goods when their manufactured goods meet the end of its life cycle" and "the goods should never harm the environment in any stage of its life cycle".
If companies don't meet these conditions then they have to pay the penalty.
Yes, plus a 10 years mininum usage guarantee (I have a mixer bought in the 60s so needless to say 10 years for some appliances is an absolute minimum)
@@alliecravulz
Absolutely yes. Degrowth is the only option. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen until it's too late.
I like this so much! It’s what I’ve been asking myself so years 😢
Degrowth is a terrible term. Like one of the experts said - it has negative meaning in this context.
We already have other terms, like sustainable or stabilize or repair or so many other words that have a positive meaning.
Yes, come up with some newspeak jibberish jargon. Or you could just call it what it would actually be, a massive decline in the standard of living in industrialized nations.
I miss the old style of videos 😢
Perhaps it's just me, but what is the old style of videos? 😊
@@Sierra-Whisky The ones with more of a home made feel to them, these feel more commercial
This all boils down to the INDIVIDUAL. The free market can not dictate who makes things and how much they produce, rather this has to be accomplished with each individual person not wanting to be part of the materialistic, consumerism mentality.
As a society we could go back to a 1950's standard of living, and not suffer. We don't need huge homes for 2 people; or plane trips so we can go on cheap vacations; or a household having more vehicles than people; or eat half our meals in restaurants; or cram full our homes with so much stuff we need to rent a storage unit on top of our three car garage. Materialism is an addiction; its not progress.
How about stop making more humans?
The the Left will go ballistic and say you are racist. Look at what happened to Macron when he promoted planned parenthood in Africa.
It seems to be more the consumption levels that are the issue here. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita tend to be higher in countries with relatively low birth rates. (🔗www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/).
@@DWPlanetA That's because they are trading having a child with other things in life that may (or may not) increase their quality of life. But having a child is itself the biggest carbon footprint you can contribute. The worst part is you have another video somewhere that claims we can have billions more people and it matters less than cutting emissions in rich countries. That misguided notion is really not helping anyone - not the overpopulated countries, not the poor (more people = more labour = lower wages), not nature, not the animals and definitely not the planet.
@@DWPlanetA Found the video - it's called "Is overpopulation really a problem for the planet?".. and one of your experts interviewee said.. "..adding 3-4 billion in the global south won't significantly impact the rate of climate change.. "
Really DW? I'm really wondering at this point if is it really the planet you're concerned about.
I am all for ‘degrowth’ or ‘downsize’ things we don’t need and focus on things we do need.
I am currently downsizing my possessions since my last move showed me that I have too much stuff.
Plus it is a little easier for those who don’t have a lot to begin with, I have a bicycle which helps me get around whenever I am not able to take the public buses, I am also in the process of purchasing a e-bike for those times when I have to be somewhere in a hurry like work or a medical appointment and so on.
I don’t have a drivers license and can’t afford a vehicle of any type, so that is one way I am cutting back on stuff.
I have a tv and DVD player but no cable cause I do not need it, the only thing I use my tv for is to watch movies.
I have a computer but not internet cause I can not afford it at the moment, so just use my computer for games and ‘work’.
you buy a ebike but dont have internet? so when you want to find any information about something you have to go to a internet café? what a hassle jfc....
@@faustinpippin9208 I have wifi on my cell phone, that’s all.
Not sure if my city has internet cafe’s or things similar, if absolutely necessary and still at my place in the city then I can go to my siblings and use their internet. If I ‘bugged out’ and headed to my parents place in the country, then I can use their internet.
And a correction, I technically did not buy the e-bike. I won a discount off an e-bike of my choice at a vehicle show I went to at my local coliseum. I only entered the contest as a lark, not expecting to win anything so was pleasantly surprised when I was contacted to say that I won…
Very good material, totally in support of it. Doing my best with my marketing strategy profession to support wellbeing over economic wealth objectives.
Ah, yes, a capitalist complaining about capitalism
What? Everybody is a capitalist.
Great video!!
Let's shun consumerism and learn to live with minimum belongings..Enough is enough..
The longer we take the do something means that we will have less options in the future, and the measures to be taken will be more dramatic. Unfortunately it is hard to not think mostly on today.
Currently on my second readthrough of Small is Beautiful by EF Schumacher. His ideas are spot on in addressing the questions posed in this video. But such changes need not happen top-down. It should happen bottom-up for it to be truly meaningful. And it will be the right thing to do even if time is not on our side.
Main problem is that we keep making stuff that intendedly breaks after warranty is over, like electronics, or stuff that is for single use anyway where it could be multi use. Making cutlery for takeaway food is better than plastics but why dont you just bring your own? Even people in the medieval times had this sorted out...
Making single use cutlery out of wood, that sentence was supposed to be.
Totally agree.
Nowadays people think shopping is the only way to achieve success, while that word is much deeper rather than owning objets.
When people say degrowth is impossible you see how limited their pattern of thinking is, how little they know about how developed nations lived in the sixties. They were prosperous, without the overconsumption and the clutter. No throwing out food, One car per household, flying once in a blue moon so holidays in your own country, and a capsule wardrobe, with a few necessary items for summer and a few more for winter. And older children passing on their clothes to their younger siblings.
Hey there! You could be interested in other videos we did. Check them out:
Food waste 👉 czcams.com/video/Qgh-ExkMlMc/video.html
SUVs 👉 czcams.com/video/viRmFuHt6lQ/video.html
while hearing this i remember a book - small is beautiful by Schumacher
In communist times in Poland the fridge could last for 30 years. Modern fridge lasts for about 5 years. Some people say we need kind of manufacturing because people have more work. I would say we need less work and more holidays but a lot of people oppose this idea.
I recently had to throw away a nice and expensive 3D TV which I have used with care and sparingly, naively believing that that would ensure years of enjoyment. When it malfunctioned I was told by multiple service providers in the (first world economy) city I live in that it was not even worth attempting to have it repaired. If I insisted on trying, the maker would charge me US$100 just to cart the machine off to depot, and that would probably have been pointless anyway because the relevant 3D technology was phased out worldwide around 2016, and not even the original maker brand was likely to have spare parts. I am sick, SICK to my stomach. I think we are all doomed to be honest.
wtf are we even debating about when right now fast fashion industry produces millions of articles of clothing that NO ONE NEEDS and that go STRAIGHT TO LANDFILLS?? somehow I refuse to believe that stopping that will ruin "the economy" 🙄🙄🙄
Hey there! We did a video on Shein, fast fashion brand. Check it out here 👉 czcams.com/video/U4km0Cslcpg/video.html
Everything in this planet is finite. Our resources, our space, our food, our energy.
We cant keep on living such wasteful lifestyles.
The world bank has published in the beginning of 1990s an interesting book titled: the quality of growth
If politicians and economists have read it and followed it, the world would have been a better place to be living
8:17 Didn't expect Cebú city, Philippines in this video
I live inn a 850 square foot house that has 2 bedrooms. Most of my furniture are antiques . The only newer pieces of furniture are the beds. My appliances are all newer because they keep breaking down within 10 yrs of purchase. There is no reason to the trendy, modern things. We all need to stop and take stock of what we have and not go buy the latest trends.
One of the most honest videos about our future
I Agree this sounds good only problem is prices will sky rocket and people already can barley survive
When money constantly loses value, people are encouraged to spend it. This correlation has been noted by several economists. If you want to decrease consumption, the best way is to get rid of monetary inflation. That encourages people to not only save money, but to have a preference for stuff that can last for decades.
Who is going to decide what we need and what we don't need? A politician right. But as always, he or she is going to be the exception. He or she is going to have a private fight, a big SUV, a single family home, etcetera.
Hey there! You could be interested in our videos that tackle the points mentioned:
Single family homes 👉 czcams.com/video/ZXmEdUykdUM/video.html
SUVs 👉 czcams.com/video/viRmFuHt6lQ/video.html
Lifestyle of the rich and the effect on climate 👉 czcams.com/video/PvPlCr_fPSA/video.html
Thanks for the upload. Could you maybe someday report about food reimports and how this damages other countries and their economies?
Europe is doing this for example with shrimps, or with chicken meat. I also would highly appreciate more light on planned obsolescence in consumer goods. Thank you very much!
Hey there :) Thanks for your input!
Everything I own and need fits in a VW Golf (it’s cramped to the max but it fits in). Can’t tell you how happy I feel about that!