This article had an extensive review of the word “degrowth.” There was so much going on that it took me a while to understand what I wanted to take away from the three authors. At first, I agreed with what Kallis, Demaria, and D’Alisa where saying about the negative environmental impact of growth. I particularly connected with the quote “To date there are hardly any countries who can claim an absolute reduction in material use or carbon emissions while growing.” This rings so true in a way that I don’t believe a lot of people had thought of. Every country (especially developed countries) wants to advance faster and better than the next – but they will just outsource their dirty energy practices to countries behind them. Especially with the fact that our natural resources will run out eventually, we need every country working on ways to be sustainable. The degrowth transition includes a transition to renewable energy as a way to keep advancing technologically but making sure that we don’t take the Earth down with us.
However, I was sort of confused when the article went deeper into the economic and political aspects of degrowth. It didn’t seem to match the rest of what they were saying – and I really didn’t understand their reasoning. I think they were being a little too optimistic in hoping people would accept this change. There is a reason America is a democracy – everyone wants their opinion to be accounted for. I don’t think this “degrowth principle” would sit well with a majority of the people in America – much less across the globe. America likes to be set in its ways – which may mean it is time to change some of those. However, if we had an “unconditional basic income” granted to all citizens no matter what, a lot of people would not put effort into their work. On paper, this theory seems to work, but when the work ethic of a good amount of people is put into play, one realizes that it just wouldn’t work the way it would need to.