Prosperity Without Growth was pivotal for me too. Like Prof. Julia Steinberger said in your last podcast, you can't read a book like that without it changing your view on things. Thank you Aristide for talking to so many great people :))
Thanks again for watching and leaving a comment it means a lot! Tim's work is such an inspiration (especially mixing disciplines so easily). Plus he is so nice to talk to! It is a pleasure learning from all these great academics
Sounds like a great book, I'm interested to check out. I'd also recommend a lesser known book by Marcia Nozick "No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities" from 1992, but still so very relevant to today! And "Ubuntu Contributionism" by Michael Tellinger and the One Small Town organization that put those ideas into practice.
This excellent interview drove me to the following thoughts. If we consider capitalism simply as a way of federating humans around a project (investment) with a shared objective (generating financial profit), we could imagine other forms of capitalism. For example, participatory financing is also a way of uniting people around a project (investment) but the objective is different (generating service, social welfare, artistic achievements, etc.) and the profit is not necessarily financial. Capitalism, seen from this angle, is not necessarily negative. The interesting thing about capitalism is that it reflects a vision of society, and in this sense it is multiform and constantly evolving. In my opinion, the reflection is more about the objectives and how to free the notion of investment from the sole financial vision. This is already underway, with many people creating their businesses based on a personal vision rather than on the sole quest for profit. Today, there is a lack of mechanisms that allow the wealth created to be evaluated in a way other than by monetary value.
Thanks for your kind comments and interesting question. Well you are right that capitalism as defined today is certainly uninspiring and destructive. However, if we change the way we perceive/define it, is it still capitalism? When looking for definitions, Wikipedia says "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit" (Cambridge Dictionary says something very similar). So profit is central and private ownership are central for capitalism. So the idea is neither about "the" collective nor about societal value. In that sense, it would be preferable not to patch something broken but steer towards something that works, don't you think? (while replying the expression "if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bike" kept crawling in the mind :))
@@MetabolismofCities Yes you are right about the definition. My point was more about saying that the strengh of capitalism is that it is (partly) driven by freedom of initiative. To cite Tim Jackson's words : “Fighting against the limits is a kind of existentialism for humans", I'd say that developing ideas that find their place in a human society is also a kind of existentialism. This aspect is largely favored by capitalism, and should not be thrown away (that's a part of the inner journey for many people) but reoriented to common interests, and other aspects than only maximum financial profit.
I had a very similar consideration btw. It sounds fine, but there a critical problem -- how can you persuade capitalists to switch their values from financial resources to the different ones that are implied? I guess this requires a profound changes in the entire public consciousness and it must be achieved peacefully based on some widely accepted consensus, right? But how? I am not sure that this is possible in the short-time perspective :(
@@OnSenseAndReference Thanks for your comment. Indeed that is the central question. Although we should not forget that this is the role of regulations and the state in general. By implementing new policies, taxes, regulations we could create a new public consciousness. This might seem radical, but remember 2 years ago, we never have thought lockdowns and grounding airplanes as possible (also that central banks would have created copious amount of money).
I think in your reimagining capitalism you created an idea that is no longer capitalism by critiquing it’s drive for profit. If you change the incentives, you change it’s core philosophy.
A new approach to economics proposes a resolution to the growth problem. Here’s how it goes: The present system is optimized for growth and consumption. The system cannot be reformed within. The reason is this optimization. A new parallel system is required that accounts for and pays for restoration to balance the consumption. The policy is called Carbon Quantitative Easing.
Tim Jackson's book Post Growth finally pushed me last year into the degrowth camp. I am now a staunch advocate for degrowth. Great podcasts, keep them coming!
Thanks for your comment Vlad! The historical part of the book is actually very interesting (including the part of Herman's Daly research). If you have any interesting recommendations of books or future guests, don't hesitate to share them.
@@MetabolismofCities There are so many interesting books. I immediately think of Jason Hickel (not sure if you interviewed him already). Also, a very interesting book I read now is The Imperial Mode of Living by Ulrich Brand and Markus Wissen. It comes from a philosophical-analytical angle. I will watch all your episodes and think of more ideas. :)
Hi Aristide. Thanks for giving Tim this platform and allowing him to speak to this issue. Really important ways of approaching our contemporary crisis discussed here.
Thanks for your comment Lars. It was an absolute honour and pleasure to have Tim on the podcast. Hope you will enjoy the other episodes as well. cheers
We currently "need" growth because fundamental costs of living are inflated. Aside from the drive for status and money (which is of course significant), when your mortgage and/or rent is $1500 a month, medical bills are thousands and college is hundreds of thousands we are driven to work more for higher wages than we would otherwise. There is also a cultural aspect to this - it is normalized to work long hours, 5 days a week. One major problem imo is that in order to get a job which pays enough and has benefits we have to work full time. I would think a lot of people would like to work less, and this would dramatically reduce our gdp, as well as our carbon footprint. I envision a world where we all work 2-3 days a week, and more basic services are socialized so as to reduce their cost. We also need to organize our cities to me more local and walkable. No more long commutes across town - work a few days a week at home or a train ride away, walk to grocery, doctor, cafe, etc. and we have a much more sustainable arrangement.
Superb interview with Tim. Struck a chord with me when you talked about connecting to nature, or getting in flow, through activities like surfing. If you are ever in Denmark I invite you to visit my cabin in the Thy region - aka Cold Hawaii. A place of surprisingly good surf (occassionaly) and opportunities for reflecting on the things that matter in life. Hope to meet you "out there" in the waves or in the mountains sometime - would really like to learn more about your work.
Thanks so much for your comment Dan and your invitation!! Cold Hawaii sounds very intriguing! Would enjoy sharing thoughts on a board (you pick the prefix) as well.
@@rustylidrazzah5170 ok but 87% would be great! and its an understandable concept for most people. calling it de-growth may be too radical or confusing for most. and this has a simple/clear political pathway - called taxation.
@@markschuette3770 I guess as a sales pitch. But it isn’t a solution. Here’s the thing. De growth is inevitable. We can either choose to do it in a managed way, or we can have crises dictate it all for us.
"i suggest De-growth is just extreme energy efficiency" No, it's much more than that. First, due to Jevons Paradox, increased energy efficiency of processes or products actually led to increased energy consumption (because of how capitalism works--which is one of many reasons capitalism must be replaced). Second, degrowth also means reduced material throughput and massively reduced total ecological footprints (by ~80+% for the average American), so that requires simpler lives, more walking and manual labor, much lower consumption of meat (especially beef and mutton), etc.
Who talked about ending capitalism? And is it wrong to rethink a economic system which presupposes infinite growth on a planet with finite material ressources?
Ok, so what's the INCENTIVE to risk your lifesavings to open a business? I am a builder. What's the INCENTIVE for me to build if I am not making money? Why open a business if there is no profit?
@nevadataylor, We need a better understanding of what will be better. Having said that, we know current systems are not working. I suggest it is prudent to slow down while we consider options. We know from past revolutions that a lot is lost and eventually replaced by things that copy the prevailing paradigm.
@@youtubesucks1499 What can you build for yourself (and your family) to enable your family to function as the old system falls away? Not only structures but relationships with people close to you (neighbours).
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
Prosperity Without Growth was pivotal for me too. Like Prof. Julia Steinberger said in your last podcast, you can't read a book like that without it changing your view on things. Thank you Aristide for talking to so many great people :))
Thanks again for watching and leaving a comment it means a lot! Tim's work is such an inspiration (especially mixing disciplines so easily). Plus he is so nice to talk to! It is a pleasure learning from all these great academics
I hope that @@MetabolismofCities
Sounds like a great book, I'm interested to check out.
I'd also recommend a lesser known book by Marcia Nozick "No Place Like Home: Building Sustainable Communities" from 1992, but still so very relevant to today!
And "Ubuntu Contributionism" by Michael Tellinger and the One Small Town organization that put those ideas into practice.
This excellent interview drove me to the following thoughts. If we consider capitalism simply as a way of federating humans around a project (investment) with a shared objective (generating financial profit), we could imagine other forms of capitalism. For example, participatory financing is also a way of uniting people around a project (investment) but the objective is different (generating service, social welfare, artistic achievements, etc.) and the profit is not necessarily financial. Capitalism, seen from this angle, is not necessarily negative. The interesting thing about capitalism is that it reflects a vision of society, and in this sense it is multiform and constantly evolving. In my opinion, the reflection is more about the objectives and how to free the notion of investment from the sole financial vision. This is already underway, with many people creating their businesses based on a personal vision rather than on the sole quest for profit. Today, there is a lack of mechanisms that allow the wealth created to be evaluated in a way other than by monetary value.
Thanks for your kind comments and interesting question. Well you are right that capitalism as defined today is certainly uninspiring and destructive. However, if we change the way we perceive/define it, is it still capitalism? When looking for definitions, Wikipedia says "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit" (Cambridge Dictionary says something very similar). So profit is central and private ownership are central for capitalism. So the idea is neither about "the" collective nor about societal value. In that sense, it would be preferable not to patch something broken but steer towards something that works, don't you think?
(while replying the expression "if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bike" kept crawling in the mind :))
@@MetabolismofCities Yes you are right about the definition. My point was more about saying that the strengh of capitalism is that it is (partly) driven by freedom of initiative. To cite Tim Jackson's words : “Fighting against the limits is a kind of existentialism for humans", I'd say that developing ideas that find their place in a human society is also a kind of existentialism. This aspect is largely favored by capitalism, and should not be thrown away (that's a part of the inner journey for many people) but reoriented to common interests, and other aspects than only maximum financial profit.
I had a very similar consideration btw. It sounds fine, but there a critical problem -- how can you persuade capitalists to switch their values from financial resources to the different ones that are implied? I guess this requires a profound changes in the entire public consciousness and it must be achieved peacefully based on some widely accepted consensus, right? But how? I am not sure that this is possible in the short-time perspective :(
@@OnSenseAndReference Thanks for your comment. Indeed that is the central question. Although we should not forget that this is the role of regulations and the state in general. By implementing new policies, taxes, regulations we could create a new public consciousness. This might seem radical, but remember 2 years ago, we never have thought lockdowns and grounding airplanes as possible (also that central banks would have created copious amount of money).
I think in your reimagining capitalism you created an idea that is no longer capitalism by critiquing it’s drive for profit.
If you change the incentives, you change it’s core philosophy.
A new approach to economics proposes a resolution to the growth problem. Here’s how it goes: The present system is optimized for growth and consumption. The system cannot be reformed within. The reason is this optimization. A new parallel system is required that accounts for and pays for restoration to balance the consumption. The policy is called Carbon Quantitative Easing.
Tim Jackson's book Post Growth finally pushed me last year into the degrowth camp. I am now a staunch advocate for degrowth. Great podcasts, keep them coming!
Thanks for your comment Vlad! The historical part of the book is actually very interesting (including the part of Herman's Daly research). If you have any interesting recommendations of books or future guests, don't hesitate to share them.
@@MetabolismofCities There are so many interesting books. I immediately think of Jason Hickel (not sure if you interviewed him already). Also, a very interesting book I read now is The Imperial Mode of Living by Ulrich Brand and Markus Wissen. It comes from a philosophical-analytical angle. I will watch all your episodes and think of more ideas. :)
@@VladBunea Will have a look at this book and don't hesitate indeed
@@MetabolismofCities Also Less is More and The Divide by Jason Hickel are equally important, since they are quite well known by a larger audience.
Hi Aristide. Thanks for giving Tim this platform and allowing him to speak to this issue. Really important ways of approaching our contemporary crisis discussed here.
Thanks for your comment Lars. It was an absolute honour and pleasure to have Tim on the podcast. Hope you will enjoy the other episodes as well. cheers
@@MetabolismofCities Start of a new paradigm?
@@larskirk6268 Much needed
Another sample of flow is the combination of physical and spiritual awareness when doing Aikido Keiko in the Dojo
For sure.
We currently "need" growth because fundamental costs of living are inflated. Aside from the drive for status and money (which is of course significant), when your mortgage and/or rent is $1500 a month, medical bills are thousands and college is hundreds of thousands we are driven to work more for higher wages than we would otherwise. There is also a cultural aspect to this - it is normalized to work long hours, 5 days a week. One major problem imo is that in order to get a job which pays enough and has benefits we have to work full time. I would think a lot of people would like to work less, and this would dramatically reduce our gdp, as well as our carbon footprint. I envision a world where we all work 2-3 days a week, and more basic services are socialized so as to reduce their cost. We also need to organize our cities to me more local and walkable. No more long commutes across town - work a few days a week at home or a train ride away, walk to grocery, doctor, cafe, etc. and we have a much more sustainable arrangement.
Superb interview with Tim. Struck a chord with me when you talked about connecting to nature, or getting in flow, through activities like surfing. If you are ever in Denmark I invite you to visit my cabin in the Thy region - aka Cold Hawaii. A place of surprisingly good surf (occassionaly) and opportunities for reflecting on the things that matter in life. Hope to meet you "out there" in the waves or in the mountains sometime - would really like to learn more about your work.
Thanks so much for your comment Dan and your invitation!! Cold Hawaii sounds very intriguing! Would enjoy sharing thoughts on a board (you pick the prefix) as well.
30 minutes into the clip it would have been nice to know at least the bare bones of the book’s key arguments. I stopped watching there.
i suggest De-growth is just extreme energy efficiency.
There is a limit to thermodynamic efficiency. You can’t get more than I believe 86%. Entropy always wins.
@@rustylidrazzah5170 ok but 87% would be great! and its an understandable concept for most people. calling it de-growth may be too radical or confusing for most. and this has a simple/clear political pathway - called taxation.
@@markschuette3770 I guess as a sales pitch. But it isn’t a solution.
Here’s the thing. De growth is inevitable. We can either choose to do it in a managed way, or we can have crises dictate it all for us.
"i suggest De-growth is just extreme energy efficiency" No, it's much more than that. First, due to Jevons Paradox, increased energy efficiency of processes or products actually led to increased energy consumption (because of how capitalism works--which is one of many reasons capitalism must be replaced). Second, degrowth also means reduced material throughput and massively reduced total ecological footprints (by ~80+% for the average American), so that requires simpler lives, more walking and manual labor, much lower consumption of meat (especially beef and mutton), etc.
Lee Anthony Wilson Steven Wilson Michael
Early stage socialism.
Bad idea 😅
End capitalism. The sooner the better.. Bad idea .
Who talked about ending capitalism?
And is it wrong to rethink a economic system which presupposes infinite growth on a planet with finite material ressources?
End capitalism. The sooner the better.
Ok, so what's the INCENTIVE to risk your lifesavings to open a business?
I am a builder. What's the INCENTIVE for me to build if I am not making money?
Why open a business if there is no profit?
@nevadataylor, We need a better understanding of what will be better. Having said that, we know current systems are not working. I suggest it is prudent to slow down while we consider options. We know from past revolutions that a lot is lost and eventually replaced by things that copy the prevailing paradigm.
@@youtubesucks1499 What can you build for yourself (and your family) to enable your family to function as the old system falls away? Not only structures but relationships with people close to you (neighbours).