From your description "The Degrowth Delusion" is full of delusions itself. Your quote:
"Many of us have had the same nagging feeling in the back of our minds: degrowth is nonsense. We know it instinctively. When someone tells us the solution to poverty is to make everyone poorer, alarm bells go off. When they claim the path to environmental sustainability requires dismantling the very systems that could deliver clean technologies at scale, our BS detectors start pinging. When they insist that human progress itself is the enemy, despite millennia of evidence to the contrary across every domain of concern, every fiber of our being rebels against such cynical and nihilistic rubbish."
This quote massively misrepresents degrowth. For a proper definition of degrowth see here:
Degrowth does not aim to make everyone poorer. Degrowth does not aim to dismantle all systems. Degrowth advocates the opposite of what Adam Dorr claims. Degrowth also attacks capitalism for its obsession with capital accumulation.
Another delusion:
"Superabundant clean energy and labor will allow us to solve virtually all of today’s environmental problems. Deforestation, desertification, habitat fragmentation and loss, overfishing, coral bleaching, eutrophication and hypoxic dead zones, ocean acidification, plastic pollution, biodiversity loss, endangered species, invasive species, air pollution, water pollution, soil erosion, soil contamination, and waste management—they will all become solvable over the next several decades."
We need these innovations NOW, not in decades. Technology has already FAILED us. Earth is already in ecological overshoot with all the great innovations we had. The problem is that many innovations were done for CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, not the improvement of the quality of life. Degrowth is calling for a SELECTIVE exnovation of ridiculous products (SUVs, fast fashion, industrial beef, etc etc) and focus on ecological innovation (healthcare, education, agroecology etc.) not for capital accumulation. It is a shame Adam Dorr wasted so much time to be on the wrong side of history.
I understand skepticism about degrowth. At the very least, the movement suffers from bad marketing and a fundamental mix-up of goals (well-being for all) with means they propose will get us there (degrowth, at least in the interim).
We have multiple competing trajectories at the moment and their intersection will determine how our future pans out. For sake of simplification, let us limit them to technological & spiritual progress vs societal and planetary tipping points. Degrowth's weak point is not enough focus on ramping up the right kind of technology, perhaps coz they conclude that we will overshoot planetary boundaries and cross tipping points long before the tech progresses sufficiently. It is a claim worth investigating.
This article, though, I must sadly conclude adds nothing meaningful to the debate because it presents no science based arguments and just tries to hand wave and say "Degrowth is bad coz we will have magic soon enough". Just saying exponential progress and superabundance will solve everything is an appeal to people's denial of the problem and desire to live in fantasy. I hope you can present some graphs to show the timelines, materials and investment required to get us to this future and compare it to where we are today. I am not saying it can't be done, but the level of argument presented here leaves a lot to be desired.
I do not want to automatically conclude this post is written in bad faith, but the excerpt you quoted in your article reeks of propaganda- "Parsing footnotes about planetary boundaries, debating the finer points of throughput accounting, and arguing about which metrics properly represent complex aggregations and floating signifiers like growth and wellbeing would obfuscate more than it would illuminate. These theatrics might impress a narrow subset of readers, but it would turn off the audience that matters most: the people actually making decisions that shape our collective future, whether in the halls of power, the c-suite, or all the rest of us in the day-to-day of our own lives."
This passage is clearly saying- ignore the science coz it is too complicated and people in power won't like it anyway. Come on. If you truly care about solving these problems then do better.
Thanks Vlad. It is clear that degrowth is very much scientifically informed and not anti-tech as much as these kind of articles might want to paint it as such
Both and. I’ve practiced voluntary minimalism for 30 years, doubled my quality of life and halved my environmental footprint to 2 planets, while also leading dozens of initiatives and businesses that drive imaginative green growth towards a rapid net zero transition. The capitalist system offers the means to use it to transition away from fossil fuels and ecocidal corporations, even if we began too late and had to leap over the dead body if less bad incremental sustainability led by the main culprits themselves. eg. WBCSD. Radical disruptive innovations are game changing, and I’m proud to be leading Regenovation driving circular bioenergy and biochar systems using accessible micro industrial technologies to soak up carbon, eliminate methane emissions and generate healthier soil, plants, animals, people and economies where we can all thrive despite the massive challenges we face
This could be your next book John- seriously -let’s touch base before xmas and I’ll take you on a tour of one of the most regenerative circular farms in the world in N Wales using these technologies and helping Shropshire hit net zero by 2030- we’ve started with the Barbados government now as a pilot for the whole Caribbean and SIDS to show what’s possible
Dorr is of course the one who is delusional, motivated as he is by selling his techno-boosterism. His grossly wrong characterisation of degrowth is a transparent attempt to straw man degrowth so that he can righteously cut it down. Supporting this position with another gross mischaracterisation of all degrowther's as 'ideologues', and dismissing the numerous and intersecting lines of evidence – from physics to economics – that show infinite growth to be impossible as "engaging in academic debate about degrowth would mean descending into the most esoteric weeds"; as if a scientific view of the reality were in is a needless distraction. Any objections can be conveniently waved away as "degrowth simply does not merit an academic level of intellectual engagement." This is just weak - and truly idealogical - stuff.
The both/and should be degrowth and technology and values. RethinkX has done some interesting work on promoting promising technological pathways, but the need to trash degrowth is an odd - and questionable - compulsion.
Hmmm. Sustainability starts with what’s between our ears and in our hearts. I find the growth vs de-growth debate numbing. It’s a distraction from addressing the root cause: our psychological wiring. And does not the suggestion that we need to target our leaders neatly avoid an inconvenient truth? That the transformation hinges on the decisions each of us makes, especially how we choose to reward ourselves.
I often find myself drawn to the arguments of degrowth so it's helpful to read your counter arguments. Thank you. I can certainly see how it would be hard to deliver degrowth without more authoritarian regimes. But, equally, the visionary leadership for the sort of green growth you advocate seems scarce amongst world leaders today sadly. Food for thought - I'll look out for the book.
Brilliant John - yes it all depends on the Values of the leaders chosen to get there. We have to look to and try encourage youth leaders, bottom up and HOPE! And also pray etc etc!
Yes, but there are going to be so many older people, like me, clogging up society's arteries that we are also going to have to work out how to shift their mindsets and voting, consumption and investment patterns...
When someone sees degrowth as enough of a threat to write a whole book about it ... I know I am on the right track.
https://degrowthistheanswer.substack.com/
From your description "The Degrowth Delusion" is full of delusions itself. Your quote:
"Many of us have had the same nagging feeling in the back of our minds: degrowth is nonsense. We know it instinctively. When someone tells us the solution to poverty is to make everyone poorer, alarm bells go off. When they claim the path to environmental sustainability requires dismantling the very systems that could deliver clean technologies at scale, our BS detectors start pinging. When they insist that human progress itself is the enemy, despite millennia of evidence to the contrary across every domain of concern, every fiber of our being rebels against such cynical and nihilistic rubbish."
This quote massively misrepresents degrowth. For a proper definition of degrowth see here:
https://timotheeparrique.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Parrique-T.-2025.-Defining-degrowth-V1-1.pdf
Degrowth does not aim to make everyone poorer. Degrowth does not aim to dismantle all systems. Degrowth advocates the opposite of what Adam Dorr claims. Degrowth also attacks capitalism for its obsession with capital accumulation.
Another delusion:
"Superabundant clean energy and labor will allow us to solve virtually all of today’s environmental problems. Deforestation, desertification, habitat fragmentation and loss, overfishing, coral bleaching, eutrophication and hypoxic dead zones, ocean acidification, plastic pollution, biodiversity loss, endangered species, invasive species, air pollution, water pollution, soil erosion, soil contamination, and waste management—they will all become solvable over the next several decades."
We need these innovations NOW, not in decades. Technology has already FAILED us. Earth is already in ecological overshoot with all the great innovations we had. The problem is that many innovations were done for CAPITAL ACCUMULATION, not the improvement of the quality of life. Degrowth is calling for a SELECTIVE exnovation of ridiculous products (SUVs, fast fashion, industrial beef, etc etc) and focus on ecological innovation (healthcare, education, agroecology etc.) not for capital accumulation. It is a shame Adam Dorr wasted so much time to be on the wrong side of history.
I understand skepticism about degrowth. At the very least, the movement suffers from bad marketing and a fundamental mix-up of goals (well-being for all) with means they propose will get us there (degrowth, at least in the interim).
We have multiple competing trajectories at the moment and their intersection will determine how our future pans out. For sake of simplification, let us limit them to technological & spiritual progress vs societal and planetary tipping points. Degrowth's weak point is not enough focus on ramping up the right kind of technology, perhaps coz they conclude that we will overshoot planetary boundaries and cross tipping points long before the tech progresses sufficiently. It is a claim worth investigating.
This article, though, I must sadly conclude adds nothing meaningful to the debate because it presents no science based arguments and just tries to hand wave and say "Degrowth is bad coz we will have magic soon enough". Just saying exponential progress and superabundance will solve everything is an appeal to people's denial of the problem and desire to live in fantasy. I hope you can present some graphs to show the timelines, materials and investment required to get us to this future and compare it to where we are today. I am not saying it can't be done, but the level of argument presented here leaves a lot to be desired.
I do not want to automatically conclude this post is written in bad faith, but the excerpt you quoted in your article reeks of propaganda- "Parsing footnotes about planetary boundaries, debating the finer points of throughput accounting, and arguing about which metrics properly represent complex aggregations and floating signifiers like growth and wellbeing would obfuscate more than it would illuminate. These theatrics might impress a narrow subset of readers, but it would turn off the audience that matters most: the people actually making decisions that shape our collective future, whether in the halls of power, the c-suite, or all the rest of us in the day-to-day of our own lives."
This passage is clearly saying- ignore the science coz it is too complicated and people in power won't like it anyway. Come on. If you truly care about solving these problems then do better.
Regarding degrowth and technology see this:
https://monthlyreview.org/articles/on-technology-and-degrowth/
Thanks Vlad. It is clear that degrowth is very much scientifically informed and not anti-tech as much as these kind of articles might want to paint it as such
Thank you for your "both/and" approach to this, as opposed to the "either/or". It is (super) refreshing in this day and age. :)
Both and. I’ve practiced voluntary minimalism for 30 years, doubled my quality of life and halved my environmental footprint to 2 planets, while also leading dozens of initiatives and businesses that drive imaginative green growth towards a rapid net zero transition. The capitalist system offers the means to use it to transition away from fossil fuels and ecocidal corporations, even if we began too late and had to leap over the dead body if less bad incremental sustainability led by the main culprits themselves. eg. WBCSD. Radical disruptive innovations are game changing, and I’m proud to be leading Regenovation driving circular bioenergy and biochar systems using accessible micro industrial technologies to soak up carbon, eliminate methane emissions and generate healthier soil, plants, animals, people and economies where we can all thrive despite the massive challenges we face
This could be your next book John- seriously -let’s touch base before xmas and I’ll take you on a tour of one of the most regenerative circular farms in the world in N Wales using these technologies and helping Shropshire hit net zero by 2030- we’ve started with the Barbados government now as a pilot for the whole Caribbean and SIDS to show what’s possible
Sounds fascinating, Robin.
Dorr is of course the one who is delusional, motivated as he is by selling his techno-boosterism. His grossly wrong characterisation of degrowth is a transparent attempt to straw man degrowth so that he can righteously cut it down. Supporting this position with another gross mischaracterisation of all degrowther's as 'ideologues', and dismissing the numerous and intersecting lines of evidence – from physics to economics – that show infinite growth to be impossible as "engaging in academic debate about degrowth would mean descending into the most esoteric weeds"; as if a scientific view of the reality were in is a needless distraction. Any objections can be conveniently waved away as "degrowth simply does not merit an academic level of intellectual engagement." This is just weak - and truly idealogical - stuff.
The both/and should be degrowth and technology and values. RethinkX has done some interesting work on promoting promising technological pathways, but the need to trash degrowth is an odd - and questionable - compulsion.
Sometimes there is truth in both sides, however much we may enjoy butting heads…
Good to hear from you, Marshall. I agree the book is provocative, but feel most of us need jolting given the gravity of the situation.
Hi John - for sure, jolts are useful - and being against silly techno-optimism - such as that promoted by Dorr - doesn't mean we should lose sight of the need for better technologies. But I would look to things like the excellent, just released, Drawdown Explorer - https://drawdown.org/news/project-drawdown-launches-drawdown-explorer-the-worlds-most-comprehensive-climate-solutions - rather than the essential unserious propaganda of the techno-optimists.
Hmmm. Sustainability starts with what’s between our ears and in our hearts. I find the growth vs de-growth debate numbing. It’s a distraction from addressing the root cause: our psychological wiring. And does not the suggestion that we need to target our leaders neatly avoid an inconvenient truth? That the transformation hinges on the decisions each of us makes, especially how we choose to reward ourselves.
Thoughtful and clarity - really appreciated
I often find myself drawn to the arguments of degrowth so it's helpful to read your counter arguments. Thank you. I can certainly see how it would be hard to deliver degrowth without more authoritarian regimes. But, equally, the visionary leadership for the sort of green growth you advocate seems scarce amongst world leaders today sadly. Food for thought - I'll look out for the book.
Brilliant John - yes it all depends on the Values of the leaders chosen to get there. We have to look to and try encourage youth leaders, bottom up and HOPE! And also pray etc etc!
Yes, but there are going to be so many older people, like me, clogging up society's arteries that we are also going to have to work out how to shift their mindsets and voting, consumption and investment patterns...
Too true! Hopefully young people will also help with that challenge - the youth have done it before