• 4 Posts
  • 109 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2025

help-circle




  • Auth@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzResources
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    No, his argument is that the average human needs this standard. also, it is a model, it is by definition simplified.

    His argument is the average hmuan needs this standard… so we can cut “unnecessary production” and it will be fine. I’m arguing that he cant label things unnecessary because hes found a standard wealth level he thinks is good enough. It wont work as an approach because humans require a diverse range of inputs to live happy lives and that requires a diverse and dynamic production economy.


  • Auth@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzResources
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Uh I disagree. The author is suggesting we could cut 70% of the worlds industry because he thinks that represents a good enough standard of living. If he was suggesting that everyone be brought up to the minimum standard then he wouldnt be suggesting large scale degrowth.

    Which paper are you getting this from?



  • Auth@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldlinus tech tip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    You dont get to where Linus has gotten without fucking up a few times. Most of his big controversies are due to bad practice of an employee and hes owned it and corrected it. The rest are due to his Spicy takes on the WAN show where he gives the ‘ceo perspective’ on consumer issues.





  • Auth@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzResources
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 days ago

    Ah hes a degrowther, makes sense. I read through his paper and I really don’t think its realistic or thought provoking. It lacks humanity and applies a utilitarian solution. Its the same as saying we have x humans producing co2 lets reduce the number of humans but instead of humans its goods he deems to be unnecessary.

    His entire premise is based on what he thinks a person needs to live a good life. But lifes just not that simple and people all around the world NEED different things this type of strict partitioning fails when applied to the entire world. Part of what makes our current system work is that its dynamic, people create goods they want and those who also want those goods buy them.









  • Can you explain this “I don’t want to be subsidizing businesses that I have no role in or control over, or paying for other people to engage in their hobbies.”

    I dont get why you are against giving money to companies you dont control only on the web, you surely do it a ton in everyday life. In regards to the hobby, how do you know its their hobby and even if it was its not your place to decide if they should be paid for their time. If they’re making something thats good enough for you to want to consume it then you should pay them for it.