Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I agree with the basic premises of décroissance (and I think that the outline you provided here feels better than the "charte").

I strongly wish to switch tomorrow totally to the agricultural model defined in the charter, and changes are already underway to do so; because a non-intensive agriculture will produce less than the one we currently have.

In my opinion, degrowth in general consumption (of non-food items) can make a much larger difference. This is touched several times in the charter, but never explicitly mentioned: build much less but more solid stuff. From computer printers to household applicances, the stuff breaks down (and is expected to break down) far too fast; and thrown away (because it's cheaper to get a new one than to mend it).

Further I disagree about not having to change the lifestyle. We need to consider swapping/mending/lending something as a first option and buying as the last, not the other way around. And, if we want to change the agricultural system, we will have quite another diet.

What does negative growth finally amount to, using the current benchmarks? Use less resources and less energy.   Means, that we have to find other benchmarks where we can "grow"; along the lines of becoming more efficient with less stuff available (Maybe Intelligent Growth :-p   ).

by srutis on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 05:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fair points.

As for the lifestyle, some changes will be required. I did say "no drastic" changes, but there will be a lot required nevertheless.

About changing our diets ... some time back I experimented with the idea of eating less meat. Then I tried stopping altogether. Now it's become a habit and I can't imagine ever switching back to the meat days. Why am I mentioning this? Because just by experimenting with this I started realizing how much everything in France is based on meat. Meat is even a norm of social interaction, here. i.e. when you're having someone for dinner, you don't think: "what will I prepare for dinner?" but "what main dish with meat will I prepare for dinner?".

So what needs to be done requires deep changes in mentality: start explaining to French people that it's not a good thing that their diet now consists of eating 100% more meat than 50 years ago. Not good for their health, not good for the planet, not good for animals, and not good for farmers who are now entrenched, because of meat (which consumes up to 70% of all vegetable growth as cattle feed), in a logic of over-production. Ultimately not good for humanity because of all the pandemics that farmed animals can cause ...

by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 06:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
About the difference between my outline and the charte, I just summed up some of the main issues that décroissance advocates defend. The charte of this new party is actually quite limited in comparison to the entire ideal of décroissance. That's to be expected, seeing how they're only just starting to politicize something that up to now was limited to a few politicians, a few economists, energy experts, scientists, and the blogosphere. This party isn't even a few days old!
by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 06:32:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: