new paper review on post growth published at Lancet Planetary Health

[Giorgos]

fyi - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519624003103

-------

Giorgos Kallis,
ICREA Professor,

ICTA, Edifici Z, Despatx Z/105
Carrer de les columnes, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

E- 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès - Barcelona)

Recent books:

2021: The Case for Degrowth (Polity Press)

2019: Limits. Why Malthus was wrong and why environmentalists should care (Stanford Uni. Press)

2018: Degrowth (Agenda Publishing)

check also https://www.howtowriteanacademicpaper.com/ 

[Vanessa Timmer]

This is great Giorgos!

Thank you for sharing and for this interesting and important review of and work on post-growth.

Here is the full citation for others:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519624003103

Giorgos Kallis, Jason Hickel, Daniel W O’Neill, Tim Jackson, Peter A Victor, Kate Raworth, Juliet B Schor, Julia K Steinberger, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz,
Post-growth: the science of wellbeing within planetary boundaries,
The Lancet Planetary Health,
Volume 9, Issue 1,
2025,
Pages e62-e78,
ISSN 2542-5196,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00310-3.
Abstract: Summary
There are increasing concerns that continued economic growth in high-income countries might not be environmentally sustainable, socially beneficial, or economically achievable. In this Review, we explore the rapidly advancing field of post-growth research, which has evolved in response to these concerns. The central idea of post-growth is to replace the goal of increasing GDP with the goal of improving human wellbeing within planetary boundaries. Key advances discussed in this Review include: the development of ecological macroeconomic models that test policies for managing without growth; understanding and reducing the growth dependencies that tie social welfare to increasing GDP in the current economy; and characterising the policies and provisioning systems that would allow resource use to be reduced while improving human wellbeing. Despite recent advances in post-growth research, important questions remain, such as the politics of transition, and transformations in the relationship between the Global North and the Global South.

All the best,

Vanessa

Vanessa Timmer | she/her | PhD | LinkedIn

Executive Director, OneEarth Living

OneEarthLiving.org | Beacon for Sustainable Living - Beacon4SL.com

Senior Research Fellow, Utrecht University - Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Urban Futures Studio 

Van...@OneEarthLiving.org | +1 604 813 3361 (Canada) | + 31 (0) 639 335 206 (Netherlands)

Follow OneEarth Living on social media: LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Youtube

 

I respectfully acknowledge that I work, live and learn on the traditional and unceded territories of Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

--
- Join the mailing list: scorai+s...@googlegroups.com
- SCORAI website: https://scorai.net
- Join SCORAI: https://scorai.net/join
- Submit an item to the next newsletter: newsl...@scorai.net
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAE8RkL96CU6rK8WeFX8EDBmy1eGOavmB5ODQj4Nw02OmSBwp6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Rosen]

Dear Scorai colleagues,

This new review paper by Kallis, et.al., is certainly the best summary of issues and scientific problems of its type ever written.  But because it is so good, one can readily understand the huge number of complex issues and problems that probably can never be modeled as a whole. (And probably not be solved, but that is another issue.) I think that piecewise modelling of the many parts of our complex physical and economic world is the best we can hope for. My major concerns lie in two different issues. The first is, as Bill Rees has often emphasized, and as this paper comments on briefly on page 66, most models never include the likely impacts of the Energy Return on Investment issue, namely will the total need for energy to create a transition to 100% renewable energy become unmanageable and very hard or impossible to achieve.  My second major concern is illustrated by their graph of GDP growth trends for high-income countries, as their GDP growth rates approach zero, as they slowly are. If at the same time income inequality trends get worse towards higher GINI indices and most income for the rich, the remaining national income for everyone but the richest 1-10% will shrink when the total "pie" shrings, impoverishing most people more than today. What then? How can human welfare goads ever be achieved?

---- Rich Rosen

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAGxps%2Bi8QMhzRutfZ9DpZ0-dmghOooCDFDFQsHRsWMvc4h_2cQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Philip Vergragt]

Thank you, Vanessa. Indeed a very good paper. I regret that the authors paid less attention to post-growth consumption levels; and what role curbing overconsumption could play. I do not think that Akenji's 1.5 degree lifestyles report has been cited.

warm regards,

Philip

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Vanessa Timmer <van...@oneearthliving.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 9:21:10 AM
To: giorgo...@gmail.com <giorgo...@gmail.com>
Cc: eco...@lists.riseup.net <eco...@lists.riseup.net>; R&D Barcelona <degrowth-...@googlegroups.com>; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net <degrowt...@lists.riseup.net>; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne <real-barcel...@eines.uab.es>; sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com>; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de <macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] new paper review on post growth published at Lancet Planetary Health

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAGxps%2Bi8QMhzRutfZ9DpZ0-dmghOooCDFDFQsHRsWMvc4h_2cQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Halina Brown]

Dear Rich,

Well said. In our forthcoming book “Language for Our Common Future: The Vocabulary for Sustainable Consumption Lifestyles” we posit that a major societal transition toward ecological sustainability cannot be achieved without also addressing wealth inequality within (and between)  countries.

 

Halina

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAMZghTYfxKETwZHbbGzGAyZVNP-zjxjSh8PAk5DcTkh3ATCZpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ruben Nelson]

The thing that caught my eye is the taken-for-granted assumption that somehow we can develop our Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) form of civilization into a truly sustainable and humane form of civilization by using the ways of seeing and thinking that are the mark of our MTI cultures.  In short, we can safely ignore Einstein’s quip about not using the same kinds/levels of thinking that got us into trouble to get us out because it this quip does not apply to us at the level of our form of civilization.  I note that the authors of this article speak not a word of this issue.  I also grant you that this is utterly normal today.

I observe that this data is consistent with two inconsistent observations:  First, that MTI cultures are utterly unreflexive and blind to the ways they construe reality at deeper than levels than they are normally conscious.  Second, it is also consistent with the common MTI assumption, that observations about the MTI form of civilization are themselves groundless; an illusion we can safely ignore.

My lifetime of work supports the former view.  If I have not wasted my life, we who are MTI persons in MTI cultures are in more and far deeper trouble than we can even see, much less respond to.  While I do not want to seriously consider that I have wasted my life, part of me roots for the view that I am simply wrong.  If I am not…

Ruben

 

Ruben (Butch) Nelson

+1-403-609-1016

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/MN0PR20MB74641D403B289958B5E1661AAAE12%40MN0PR20MB7464.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

[Rees, William E.]

Rich and Halina have identified a couple of omissions in this fine paper but I think there are several more --

First, the world is already in a state of advanced overshoot -- humanity is consuming even essential renewable resources faster than ecosystems can regenerate and generating waste in excess of nature's assimilation capacity.  (More simply, there are too many people consuming and polluting too much).  By definition, overshoot is a terminal condition.  Kallis et al. do point out that we have alreaday surpassed six of nine planetary sustainability boundaries, but there is insufficient follow-through. By some estimates, to eliminate overshoot will require a 60-80% reduction in global economic throughput. By what means can this be achieved while addressing egregious inequality and dealing with anticipated economic and population growth.

Which raises my second query.  Why no serious assessment of the population issue, or better the population + rising incomes issue?  Even with anticipated efficiency gains does anyone seriously believe that we can add an additional two billion people at reasonable living standards to a world already in overshoot and anticipating rising per capita consumption, without risking major increases in consumption/pollution, runaway climate change and ecosystems collapses?  I don't think any serious analysis can side-step this issue, particularly since the increases will necessarily be 'fueled' with fossil energy which means no detour on our path to climate chaos.  (All promotional hype aside "the energy transition hasn't even started yet" (see Schernikau 2024 for a good summary of this issue:  https://unpopular-truth.com/2024/11/09/are-wind-and-solar-up-for-the-challenge/) 

Third, it is easy to say WHAT must be done (e.g. "...replace the goal of increasing GDP with the goal of improving human wellbeing within planetary boundaries" but much more difficult to explain precisely HOW to achieve the 'what' part.  The paper does mention that the "politics of transition" remains an issue but on what imaginary planet will two  billion wealthy 'haves', led by an increasingly brutish group of billionaires and oligarchs, voluntarily engage in policies to give up their positions of wealth and power in the name of greater equity and to protect the ecosphere?  Where is there a shred of evidence that there is support for the assumed needed "planned, democratic transformation" in any modern techno-industrial society?   I certainly didn't see reference to this need among President Trump's executive orders-- on the contrary he has eliminated (or will eliminate) all manner of provisions for social equity and environmental protection. (Typical of right-leaning governments everywhere?)

Finally, and encompassing the above, it seems to me that the Kallis et al. paper, while outstanding in its genre, is an example of cultural self-reference--we keep looking for solutions from among the same cultural beliefs, values, assumptions and behaviours that created the original problem.  I suspect that the global eco-socio-crisis is an inevitable emergent property of the interaction of MTI society as presently conceived and the ecosphere; these systems are fundamentally incompatible.  If so, there is no solution from within the mindset of MTI society.

Bill  

From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Richard Rosen <richard...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 12:31:13 PM
To: van...@oneearthliving.org

Cc: giorgo...@gmail.com; eco...@lists.riseup.net; R&D Barcelona; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne; sco...@googlegroups.com; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] new paper review on post growth published at Lancet Planetary Health

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAMZghTYfxKETwZHbbGzGAyZVNP-zjxjSh8PAk5DcTkh3ATCZpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jean Boucher]

But Bill, if you please excuse the very dark humour, I think you completely overlooked how the Trump win is a big win for civilization, and we will soon be setting up camp on Mars!  ;-)   (no need to respond!)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/9f18bea54806435bac4848975f53079e%40mail.ubc.ca.

[Klaus Hubacek]

Hi Philip,

this recent paper (which is not in their review) links the overshoot of the planetary boundaries explicitly to differences in consumption patterns but does not address much how to reduce it.

cheers

Klaus

 

Keeping consumption within planetary boundaries without hurting the poor. Nature. 10.1038/s41586-024-08154-w. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08154-w

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/MN0PR20MB74641D403B289958B5E1661AAAE12%40MN0PR20MB7464.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

[Rees, William E.]

Hello again, everyone –

Oskar Wood Hansen raises some important issues pertaining to consumption and population.  These need to be addressed.  In particular, he argues that as long as the world is plagued by egregious inequality it is inappropriate to raise the question of excessive human numbers.  

I am not convinced that this is correct.  Let me explain my understanding:

1. The human world is in overshoot consuming and polluting more annually than the ecosphere can produce and assimilate in a year (see GFN 2025).  Overfishing, tropical deforestation, soil depletion and excess carbon dioxide emissions are examples of variables in overshoot. 
2. Overshoot is eventually terminal – if overshoot is unattended, the human enterprise will crash.
3. Global overshoot is based on total consumption/pollution. This means that even average material standards of living are excessive.  In other words:
4. Complete material equality (8.1 billion people living exactly the same lifestyles) would not eliminate or even reduce overshoot.
5. Complete equality would require average North Americans to reduce their consumption/pollution by ~65%; average Europeans by ~45% and the world would still be in overshoot.
6. Let’s assume the world is in 50% above sustainable consumption/pollution levels.  This is an underestimate for such variables as fossil fuel consumption/carbon dioxide emissions and soil degradation, but serves to illustrate.
7. With just 50% overshoot and complete equality, the average global citizen would still have to reduce consumption/pollution by about one third to reach sustainable levels of consumption/pollution.  (North Americans would have to reduce by 70%; Europeans by 50%)
8. The other option is a ~33% carefully managed, non-coercive reduction in fertility and population. 

In short, dealing with inequality in isolation does not bring us to sustainable levels of consumption and pollution.  We must still address overpopulation and population growth. 

It is absolutely true that overshoot is the result of overconsumption mostly by the rich (as illustrated above using NA and Europe).  However, consumption is a product of per capita consumption and population.  Ecological footprint analysis shows that, in recent decades, population growth has been a greater contributor to overshoot at the margin than is consumption increase in all income categories.  Similarly, Tamburino et al. (2023) show that “population growth is the main driver of emissions increase in all income groups except the upper-middle one”. Again, these data argue that the world cannot achieve sustainable production/consumption and pollution without attending to excess human numbers.  

If the world is already in overshoot (remember, it’s a terminal condition) then I have to ask:  what is to be gained by pretending that the two billion people still living in poverty can be raised to, say, European material standards without crashing the ecosphere? (And we still would have to deal with the additional two billion people expected by 2080.)

This is why we should be celebrating, not lamenting, peak population and decline in high-income countries (one North American is the equivalent to perhaps 10 citizens of the world’s poorest regions) but also why we cannot ignore population growth in high growth regions like Africa.

By the way, I suspect that most folks on this list live above average North American or European living standards and we are all well informed about the global eco-social crisis. Nevertheless, I suspect few of us are in the process of voluntarily reducing our material standards by half to 75%.  
(Full disclosure: I am not).

If the above data or my overall argument are wrong, please do explain your concerns.

Respectfully,

Bill

Aka

William E Rees, PhD, FRSC
Professor Emeritus
UBC Faculty of Applied Science

 

References

GFN. 2025. About Earth Overshoot Day. Global Footprint Network.  https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/about-earth-overshoot-day/

Tamburino, L.; Cafaro, P.; Bravo, G. An Analysis of Three Decades of Increasing Carbon Emissions: The Weight of the P Factor. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043245

---

From: Carol Bardi <carol...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 5:37:22 AM
To: Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat
Cc: jlb...@gmail.com; Rees, William E.; van...@oneearthliving.org; richard...@gmail.com; giorgo...@gmail.com; eco...@lists.riseup.net; R&D Barcelona; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne; sco...@googlegroups.com; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de
Subject: Re: [degrowth-world] [SCORAI] new paper review on post growth published at Lancet Planetary Health

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

Hi Oskar,

This is not spamming, your intervention was on point and needed. An e-mail discussion list exists for this objective, in my opinion. 

I was planning on formulating something along the same lines tonight (in my Brazilian timezone).

Thank you for your contribution.

CB

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 at 07:03 Oskar Louis Wood Hansen <degrowt...@lists.riseup.net> wrote:

It saddens me that some keep pointing to population as an issue. It is particularly confusing when done in the same breath that mention inequality. I must intervene since nobody else has. I also encourage everyone to speak on when they hear this line of thinking.

As long as environmental footprints vary immensely between rich and poor, it makes little sense to focus on the total number of people on our planet. Remember that the resources consumed by average person in Europe, with the energy and material consumption that entails, could potentially sustain the lives of 100, maybe 1000 (I don’t have the exact numbers on hand), people with a decent living standard. You might argue that number of overconsuming people is a problem, but please don’t point to the global population as a problem.

 

Alleviating poverty is expected to be a minor contributor to increased environmental pressures, in contrast to the increasing income of the global rich. See Ending extreme poverty has a negligible impact on global greenhouse gas emissions (Nature 2023) & Impacts of poverty alleviation on national and global carbon emissions (Nature Sustainability 2022).

Even if you think population is the issue, it’s not a relevant lever to reduce environmental pressures, see the argument in https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1410465111.

 

Finally, of course everyone should have access and education about contraception, this is not the question.

Sorry for spamming everyone. I wish you all a good day.

 

Best

Oskar Wood Hansen

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:degrowth-worl...@lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

[Giorgos]

♥️

Giorgos reacted via Gmail

On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:03 PM Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch> wrote:

Dear Bill,

I can accept that argument that those of us looking into more radical economic and demand-side solutions to climate and ecological crisis have a tendency to avoid mentioning global population, despite it being an obviously important driver (I have in the past been guilty of this myself).

What I don't see, however, is how reducing the human population by 33% (which I think you are suggesting?) is any more realistic that the ambitions of degrowth. Consider that the main billionaire lining up behind Trump has 11 children and is of the opinion that our problem is underpopulation, and that many of the less-rich behind Trump would like to see a blanket abortion ban in the most high-consuming country of the world.

In short, degrowth and large near-term population contraction seem to me both equally susceptible to the 'how?' critique — the latter probably more so. 

Another point is that the world imagined by degrowth includes most of the things that serve to non-coercively reduce population — education, healthcare, women's rights, higher incomes in the Global South.

e.g., https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1611386113

I personally would see a lower global population (even 33% lower) as a welcome side effect of a transition to a more just global economic system.

Best,

Joel

---

From: Rees, William E. <wr...@mail.ubc.ca>
Sent: 23 January 2025 18:53
To: Carol Bardi <carol...@gmail.com>; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat <Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat>
Cc: jlb...@gmail.com <jlb...@gmail.com>; van...@oneearthliving.org <van...@oneearthliving.org>; richard...@gmail.com <richard...@gmail.com>; giorgoskallis <giorgo...@gmail.com>; eco...@lists.riseup.net <eco...@lists.riseup.net>; R&D Barcelona <degrowth-...@googlegroups.com>; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net <degrowt...@lists.riseup.net>; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne <real-barcel...@eines.uab.es>; sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com>; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de <macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de>

[Ashley Colby]

I wonder specifically if Bill or anyone else on this list has been following the declining world total fertility rate and has any thoughts on what this will mean for degrowth?

I came across this work of a retired UCSD Astrophysicist Tom Murphy whose projections seem to indicate we are due to reach peak world population well before 2050:

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/06/peak-population-projections/

He also thinks this will mean peak energy/resource consumption will come before that date, due to the fact that the highest TFR regions are in the lowest consumption quartile. 

Anyone following this? 

Ashley Fitzgerald

PhD, Environmental Sociology

Co-founder Rizoma Field School

My book: Subsistence Agriculture in the US

Twitter @RizomaSchool

See my most recent writing here

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CAE8RkL-5BhAktg_z9t3MeOjh-bKho%2BeFKnVfjyTnkq6kmb7H6g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Philip Vergragt]

Rather than continuing to address population growth in general, I suggest we could do some thoughtful research into what happens if population declines quickly, and what it means for footprint and degrowth. We have numerous examples in Europe and China and Japan of fast population shrinking, with sometimes devastating effects on local communities and economies; but we do not know about production-consumption aspects, which is our area of interest,

As to Africa, which has a real and immense problem of population growth, numerous foundations with deep pockets have addressed this, and there is little SCORAI can add here; unless somebody wants to propose a real and focused research project. I would rather propose to research job creation there through small-scale sustainability projects and find local partners for this; ad how to counteract the lure of social media and Hollywood that give a totally distorted image of life in so-called developing countries.

warm regards,

Philip

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Ashley Colby <ash...@rizomafieldschool.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 10:43:44 AM
To: giorgo...@gmail.com <giorgo...@gmail.com>
Cc: Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch>; Rees, William E. <wr...@mail.ubc.ca>; Carol Bardi <carol...@gmail.com>; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat <Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat>; jlb...@gmail.com <jlb...@gmail.com>; van...@oneearthliving.org <van...@oneearthliving.org>; richard...@gmail.com <richard...@gmail.com>; eco...@lists.riseup.net <eco...@lists.riseup.net>; R&D Barcelona <degrowth-...@googlegroups.com>; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net <degrowt...@lists.riseup.net>; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne <real-barcel...@eines.uab.es>; sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com>; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de <macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CACnimAnn1PYvnpjeZjiHa2Z%3Dv8aXV2MZd_Qrfpx2_d%2BAsGPiwA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Farrash Khiabani, Fatima]

Interesting remarks 🙏

Something has always been overlooked regarding the population: the quality of the population, the number of individuals who contribute to the well-being of the society.

Most studies are focused on the number of people, and even their economic situation.

Some countries, such as Iran, are overpopulated while they are in desperate need of workforce!

Population growth in these countries means “increasing the number of criminals, sex workers, disabled people, etc. not skilled workers. The root of the problem is economic hardship, but it damages the society.

When the middle-class refuse to have more than one child, and the impoverished citizens do not have enough access to birth control and education, the country will face a crisis of natural resources, economy, and safety.

Best Regards 

Fatemeh Farrash Khiabani

MSc Development and Rural Innovation

Wageningen University and Research (WUR)

---

From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Philip Vergragt <pver...@outlook.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 8:49:19 PM
To: ash...@rizomafieldschool.com <ash...@rizomafieldschool.com>; giorgo...@gmail.com <giorgo...@gmail.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/MN0PR20MB74641D3794B8F641915767FEAAE32%40MN0PR20MB7464.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

[Rees, William E.]

Hi all --

Studies of particular cases can yield interesting results and transferable lessons. However, I’m not sure we need more studies and analysis of the basic issue.  It’s pretty clear that the world is in overshoot (too many people consuming and polluting too much).  To fix overshoot – i.e., to move toward ‘sustainable production and consumption’ – there must be a great absolute reduction in global economic throughput.  This can be achieved through simpler lifestyles (lower consumption) or smaller populations or both.   

But there is a problem with emphasis on lowering consumption; two billion people are still in relative poverty and (justifiably) deserve more consumption, another two billion are better off and still want more and the richest half of humanity are, in general reluctant to give up what they have and are being persuaded by all the ‘public relations’ and advertising power of MTI corporations to want more.  I am not aware of any country in which even a significant minority are joining the voluntary simplicity movement en masse. Some people do so act, of course, which gives the degrowth movement illustrative examples and, conceivably, if resources become scarce and prices rise (etc., etc.) such leadership will assist the majority to make the shift.  In the meantime, I strongly suspect global economic throughput will continue to rise as long as energy supplies hold out.

Which brings me to the point I was trying to make in my original comment on the Kallis et al. paper.  It really is important to ‘factor in’ population issues in any broadcast strategy for degrowth.  Fertility rates and absolute populations are already falling in several high-income countries; the data show clearly that the same transition happens even in relatively poor countries if women have greater economic independence and free access to family planning education and birth control technologies.  In short, population planning works and can make a significant contribution to reducing overshoot in the relatively short term—it will accelerate the fall in fertility rates, quicken the time to peak population and ultimately significantly reduce the numbers of people who will suffer or perish in the event of climate chaos, global energy shortages, the breakdown of global supply chains, etc.  

Tom Murphy’s demographic model (shared by Ashley) provides additional support for the argument that lowering fertility will have significant effects on the global population trajectory.

Let me be clear about my bottom line: IMHO, H. sapiens is not much different from other ‘K’-strategic species; we are inherently prone to boom-bust population dynamics (see Rees 2020).  From this perspective, humanity is nearing the peak of a one-off boom-bust population cycle.  Collapse will come probably within this century; informed people should be doing what they can to soften the landing—yes, promote material degrowth but bring in a major population planning component.  

While our species will not go extinct, we should be anticipating smaller populations living much simpler, locally-focused lives. The long-term carrying capacity of Earth is probably in the vicinity one billion (early 19^th century level before fossil fuels caught on) but possibly less given the depleted state of essential so-called ‘natural capital’ (And this assumes we can avoid a nuclear conflagration among competing nations on the way down).

Good cheer to all, 

Bill

Reference

Rees, W. 2020. The fractal biology of plague and the future of civilization. The Journal of Population and Sustainability. 5, 1 (Dec. 2020), 15–30. Available free at https://doi.org/10.3197/jps.2020.5.1.15

.

---

From: Philip Vergragt <pver...@outlook.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 9:19:19 AM
To: ash...@rizomafieldschool.com; giorgo...@gmail.com
Cc: Joel Millward-Hopkins; Rees, William E.; Carol Bardi; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat; jlb...@gmail.com; van...@oneearthliving.org; richard...@gmail.com; eco...@lists.riseup.net; R&D Barcelona; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne; sco...@googlegroups.com; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de

[E Gudynas]

Hello everyone

This message is to share some reactions to the review by Giorgos Kallis, and his co-authors, on postgrowth, sento to this list.
I found the article very interesting, as well as the reactions on the email lists.
So, I decided to share some ideas -- in an attached PDF (which is necessary because it includes some drawings).
Regards

Eduardo Gudynas

Visiting fellow, University of Granada, Spain
CLAES – Latin American Center Social Ecology

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Philip Vergragt]

Thank you, Jose Eustaquio.

I think Bulgaria would be a fascinating country to study. And of course other countries and areas as well.

As a SCORAI-Global Board member I propose that a working group be formed to study this issue further and develop an advice, policy brief, or paper with concrete suggestions for us to contemplate.

The active contributors to this discussion are invited to join this working group. Please write to me personally especially if you want to lead such a group. We would be very excited if a think tank like SCORAI could come up with some thorough advice.

Thank you,

Philip

 

From: Jose Eustaquio Alves <jed_...@yahoo.com.br>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 5:34 PM
To: Philip Vergragt <pver...@outlook.com>; ash...@rizomafieldschool.com; giorgo...@gmail.com; sco...@googlegroups.com; wr...@mail.ubc.ca
Cc: Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch>; Carol Bardi <carol...@gmail.com>; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat; jlb...@gmail.com; van...@oneearthliving.org; richard...@gmail.com; eco...@lists.riseup.net; R&D Barcelona <degrowth-...@googlegroups.com>; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne <real-barcel...@eines.uab.es>; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de
Subject: Re: [degrowth-world] [SCORAI] new paper review on post growth published at Lancet Planetary Health

 

Hello everyone,

This debate is truly fascinating.

I am among those who believe it is crucial to address demographic issues. It's no coincidence that the three largest CO2 emitters — China, the United States, and India — are also the most populous countries in the world. By 2050, China is expected to surpass the historical emissions of the United States.

I struggle to understand how one can advocate for a decrease in GDP without also addressing population reduction, since this approach seems like a recipe for widespread impoverishment. On the other hand, if the population decreases more rapidly than GDP, the per capita income rises. Currently, this is evident in several countries such as Japan, Russia, China, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and others, where population decline has coincided with growing per capita income.

A striking example is Bulgaria, where a shrinking population not only has boosted per capita income (and reduced poverty) but also reduced the ecological footprint, improved biocapacity and nearly eliminated the environmental deficit.

I use to call environmentalist  who refuse to address demographic issues as "demographic deniers".

 

These are the topics I am woriking on my article (written in Portuguese), available in this link below:

ALVES, JED. Crescimento demoeconômico no Antropoceno e negacionismo demográfico, Liinc em Revista, RJ, v. 18, n. 1, e5942, maio 2022   https://revista.ibict.br/liinc/article/view/5942/5595

 

Apologies if my comments come across as provocative.

Respectfully,

 

José Eustáquio

 

 

[Halina Brown]

Dear Jose,

I agree with you that we do need to talk about population, and that a rapid decrease in GDP would have very adverse consequences for people in the bottom half of the income pyramid (I am thinking of the US while writing this).

 

But consider the following very simple scenario: In the US, almost all of the GDP growth in the past 10-15 years has enriched those in the top few percent of income. These are people who do not need that extra wealth in order to meet their needs plus much more than that. It was mostly in the form of capital gains and rents, not the product of individual labor.

 

If all this extra wealth would go in the future to the people whose lives it could greatly improve, we would not need to grow the GDP to lift them up. And if we applied this type of wealth transfer to the past several decades, during which the major beneficiaries of GDP growth were those in the top income bracket, who knows, maybe we might have been able to lower the overall GDP.

 

This is a very simplistic picture, but it illustrates how income inequality drives the politics of GDP growth.

Halina

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

♥️

Giorgos reacted via Gmail

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/MN0PR20MB7464DE5783DCF0F928AB877EAAEF2%40MN0PR20MB7464.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

[ves...@comcast.net]

Hi José Eustáquio and Philip (and all),

 

Thank you for this fascinating discussion. I usually do not participate in the discussions due to my very limited time (although I enjoy these and like seeing new publications!) However, I got really tempted this time when I saw the mentioning of Bulgaria.

 

As someone who was born and grew up in Bulgaria (and visits every summer for a month and a half) I wanted to clarity that while it is true that the population is shrinking fast and “overall” Bulgarians are better off (there are still a lot of people living in extreme poverty), one main reason for the reduced poverty was government policies which significantly increased pensions for retirees a few years ago. With a lot of foreign companies coming to Bulgaria, the average salary also increased. Unfortunately, pollution is still very prevalent and I do not see the ‘near elimination of the environmental deficit’ (I used to work for the Ministry of Environment and still have many former colleagues there).

 

Best,
Vesela

 

 

From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Philip Vergragt

Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 6:55 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/MN0PR20MB7464DE5783DCF0F928AB877EAAEF2%40MN0PR20MB7464.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

[Rees, William E.]

Joel --

Actually, according to what seems to be an emerging consensus (or at least convergence of estimates) the sustainable human population of Earth is somewhere between one and two billion people.  This is about the early 19th Century level  before fossil fuel use kicked in.  If valid, it would mean a human population reduction of at least 75% not just 33%. 

I agree with you completely that "degrowth and large near-term population contraction seem... both equally susceptible to the 'how?' critique."  However, implicit here is that while we are facing grave difficulties, there is a viable solution to our current predicament.  Is this realistic?

Consider the historic record on just climate change.  The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the COP process date from 1992, when the world was about 81% fossil fuel (FF) dependent. Thirty-three years and 28 COP conferences -- dedicated to emissions reductions -- later, the world is still 80% plus FF dependent, and FF use and emissions have increased by about ~40%, are at record levels, and are still rising.  Examine just about any other co-symptom of overshoot and find similar results.  

Meanwhile the UN Population fund argues that reaching eight billion no problem but rather evidence of human success which is why no nation is interested in population planning [1].

This leads me to believe that  the world is in a true predicament. There is no solution, only some potentially disastrous outcome.  

Bill

[1] https://www.unfpa.org/news/population-bomb-bust-%E2%80%93-or-boon-new-unfpa-report-debunks-8-myths-about-world-8-billion#:~:text=Myth%201:%20There%20are%20too,of%20welcome%20increases%20in%20long

On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:03 PM Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch> wrote:

Dear Bill,

I can accept that argument that those of us looking into more radical economic and demand-side solutions to climate and ecological crisis have a tendency to avoid mentioning global population, despite it being an obviously important driver (I have in the past been guilty of this myself).

What I don't see, however, is how reducing the human population by 33% (which I think you are suggesting?) is any more realistic that the ambitions of degrowth. Consider that the main billionaire lining up behind Trump has 11 children and is of the opinion that our problem is underpopulation, and that many of the less-rich behind Trump would like to see a blanket abortion ban in the most high-consuming country of the world.

In short, degrowth and large near-term population contraction seem to me both equally susceptible to the 'how?' critique — the latter probably more so. 

Another point is that the world imagined by degrowth includes most of the things that serve to non-coercively reduce population — education, healthcare, women's rights, higher incomes in the Global South.

e.g., https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1611386113

I personally would see a lower global population (even 33% lower) as a welcome side effect of a transition to a more just global economic system.

Best,

Joel

---

From: Jones DN <jo...@bigpond.com>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 2:39:48 PM
To: Rees, William E.
Cc: Philip Vergragt; ash...@rizomafieldschool.com; giorgo...@gmail.com; sco...@googlegroups.com; Joel Millward-Hopkins; Carol Bardi; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat; jlb...@gmail.com; van...@oneearthliving.org; richard...@gmail.com; eco...@lists.riseup.net; R&D Barcelona; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de
Subject: Refrigerant Gas Compression

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

Nice example (see article link) of Technology, The Energy-Complexity Spiral, and associated positive and negative feedback loops operating in Sabin Roman's model.

 

See:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-01-28/air-conditioning-changed-australia-technology-heat-comfort/104741512

 

Air Con feedbacks

Positive Loop - Energy and Materials	Negative Loop - Lifestyle
Air Con Unit construction	High density High Rise living
Air Con Unit decommissioning/recycling	Worsening ecol overshoot incl climate change
Commuting	enables longer urban commuting
High Density High Rise living	enables office work
Building in less habitable areas	enables consumerism etc
Building design	increases societal Complexity and the Spiral
Electricity demand	Health impacts
HCFC-22 release - GHG
Promotes/enables Overshoot and Societal Complexity
Psychology of "comfort"

 

 

==============================================================================

??

Giorgos reacted via Gmail

[Giorgos]

♥️

Giorgos reacted via Gmail

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 3:31 PM Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch> wrote:

Hi Bill,

I'm not aware of any emerging conensus of carrying capacity being 1-2 billion. I suspect the range is more like 1-10 billion and strongly dependent upon the way society produces and consumes the goods and services essential for human wellbeing (transport mode share, diets, size and quality of housing, etc.) as well as the levels and distribution of luxury consumption (inequality, basically).

Recent studies suggest the basic goods and services required for wellbeing can theoretically be provided to the current world population within planetary boundaries, and potentially also in 2050: 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00042-1/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652624008953 

Obviously the socioeconomic and political transformations that kind of world requires are drastic and very unlikely to happen — the record you reference on climate is a perfect example of this. However, I think non-coercively reducing the world population to 1-2 billion even this century is essentially impossible. So I agree with you, this leaves somewhat of a predicament, but I am just not sure it is useful to put population reduction at the forefront of the debate, when there are more desirable and effective solutions — albeit politically difficult ones.

Best,

Joel 

 

---

From: Rees, William E. <wr...@mail.ubc.ca>

Sent: 30 January 2025 23:27
To: Jones DN <jo...@bigpond.com>
Cc: Philip Vergragt <pver...@outlook.com>; ash...@rizomafieldschool.com <ash...@rizomafieldschool.com>; giorgoskallis <giorgo...@gmail.com>; sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com>; Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch>; Carol Bardi <carol...@gmail.com>; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat <Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat>; jlb...@gmail.com <jlb...@gmail.com>; van...@oneearthliving.org <van...@oneearthliving.org>; richard...@gmail.com <richard...@gmail.com>; eco...@lists.riseup.net <eco...@lists.riseup.net>; R&D Barcelona <degrowth-...@googlegroups.com>; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net <degrowt...@lists.riseup.net>; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne <real-barcel...@eines.uab.es>; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de <macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de>
Subject: Re: Refrigerant Gas Compression

 

[Rees, William E.]

Many thanks and many excellent points, Rich.

Bill

---

From: Richard Rosen <richard...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 9:00:03 AM
To: Joel Millward-Hopkins
Cc: Rees, William E.; Jones DN; Philip Vergragt; ash...@rizomafieldschool.com; giorgoskallis; sco...@googlegroups.com; Carol Bardi; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat; jlb...@gmail.com; van...@oneearthliving.org; eco...@lists.riseup.net; R&D Barcelona; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de
Subject: Re: Refrigerant Gas Compression

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

Dear Scorai Colleagues,

You might be interested in a new preprint of mine, see attachment, that will be published in Futures. It is about the scientific difficulties in creating valid scenarios for the future. Comments would be appreciated.

--- Rich Rosen

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 9:31 AM Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch> wrote:

Hi Bill,

I'm not aware of any emerging conensus of carrying capacity being 1-2 billion. I suspect the range is more like 1-10 billion and strongly dependent upon the way society produces and consumes the goods and services essential for human wellbeing (transport mode share, diets, size and quality of housing, etc.) as well as the levels and distribution of luxury consumption (inequality, basically).

Recent studies suggest the basic goods and services required for wellbeing can theoretically be provided to the current world population within planetary boundaries, and potentially also in 2050: 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00042-1/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652624008953 

Obviously the socioeconomic and political transformations that kind of world requires are drastic and very unlikely to happen — the record you reference on climate is a perfect example of this. However, I think non-coercively reducing the world population to 1-2 billion even this century is essentially impossible. So I agree with you, this leaves somewhat of a predicament, but I am just not sure it is useful to put population reduction at the forefront of the debate, when there are more desirable and effective solutions — albeit politically difficult ones.

Best,

Joel 

 

---

From: Rees, William E. <wr...@mail.ubc.ca>

Sent: 30 January 2025 23:27
To: Jones DN <jo...@bigpond.com>
Cc: Philip Vergragt <pver...@outlook.com>; ash...@rizomafieldschool.com <ash...@rizomafieldschool.com>; giorgoskallis <giorgo...@gmail.com>; sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com>; Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch>; Carol Bardi <carol...@gmail.com>; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat <Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat>; jlb...@gmail.com <jlb...@gmail.com>; van...@oneearthliving.org <van...@oneearthliving.org>; richard...@gmail.com <richard...@gmail.com>; eco...@lists.riseup.net <eco...@lists.riseup.net>; R&D Barcelona <degrowth-...@googlegroups.com>; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net <degrowt...@lists.riseup.net>; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne <real-barcel...@eines.uab.es>; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de <macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de>
Subject: Re: Refrigerant Gas Compression

 

Joel --

[Richard Rosen]

Dear Scorai Colleagues,

You might be interested in a new preprint of mine, see attachment, that will be published in Futures. It is about the scientific difficulties in creating valid scenarios for the future. Comments would be appreciated.

--- Rich Rosen

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 9:31 AM Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch> wrote:

Hi Bill,

I'm not aware of any emerging conensus of carrying capacity being 1-2 billion. I suspect the range is more like 1-10 billion and strongly dependent upon the way society produces and consumes the goods and services essential for human wellbeing (transport mode share, diets, size and quality of housing, etc.) as well as the levels and distribution of luxury consumption (inequality, basically).

Recent studies suggest the basic goods and services required for wellbeing can theoretically be provided to the current world population within planetary boundaries, and potentially also in 2050: 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00042-1/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652624008953 

Obviously the socioeconomic and political transformations that kind of world requires are drastic and very unlikely to happen — the record you reference on climate is a perfect example of this. However, I think non-coercively reducing the world population to 1-2 billion even this century is essentially impossible. So I agree with you, this leaves somewhat of a predicament, but I am just not sure it is useful to put population reduction at the forefront of the debate, when there are more desirable and effective solutions — albeit politically difficult ones.

Best,

Joel 

 

---

From: Rees, William E. <wr...@mail.ubc.ca>

Sent: 30 January 2025 23:27
To: Jones DN <jo...@bigpond.com>
Cc: Philip Vergragt <pver...@outlook.com>; ash...@rizomafieldschool.com <ash...@rizomafieldschool.com>; giorgoskallis <giorgo...@gmail.com>; sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com>; Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch>; Carol Bardi <carol...@gmail.com>; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat <Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat>; jlb...@gmail.com <jlb...@gmail.com>; van...@oneearthliving.org <van...@oneearthliving.org>; richard...@gmail.com <richard...@gmail.com>; eco...@lists.riseup.net <eco...@lists.riseup.net>; R&D Barcelona <degrowth-...@googlegroups.com>; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net <degrowt...@lists.riseup.net>; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne <real-barcel...@eines.uab.es>; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de <macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de>
Subject: Re: Refrigerant Gas Compression

 

Joel --

[Rees, William E.]

Polar bears are the new canaries.

---

From: Jones DN <jo...@bigpond.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:10:35 AM
To: Paul Sutton
Cc: Rees, William E.; Philip Vergragt; ash...@rizomafieldschool.com; giorgo...@gmail.com; sco...@googlegroups.com; Joel Millward-Hopkins; Carol Bardi; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat; jlb...@gmail.com; van...@oneearthliving.org; richard...@gmail.com; eco...@lists.riseup.net; Barcelona R&D; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de
Subject: Polar Bears

 

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

Arctic Sea Ice is collapsing.

 

The Polar Bear population is collapsing.

 

The attached paper uses a bioenergetics model, easily translatable to humans during and after The Great Simplification/The Great Energy Descent.

 

 

====================================================================

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:32:07 +0000

Paul Sutton <paul....@du.edu> wrote:

 

> Can we just agree that this is an’and’ situation rather than an ‘or’?

>

> Sent from my iPad

> Prof. Paul C. Sutton

> Department of Geography and the Environment

> University of Denver

> paul....@du.edu

> Phone: (303) 871-2399

> http://urizen-geography.nsm.du.edu/~psutton/AAA_Sutton_WebPage/Sutton/index.html

>

>

>

> On Feb 5, 2025, at 10:04 AM, Rees, William E. <degrowt...@lists.riseup.net> wrote:

>

> ?

> [External Email From]: degrowth-w...@lists.riseup.net

>

>

>

> Joel --

> Actually, according to what seems to be an emerging consensus (or at least convergence of estimates) the sustainable human population of Earth is somewhere between one and two billion people.  This is about the early 19th Century level  before fossil fuel use kicked in.  If valid, it would mean a human population reduction of at least 75% not just 33%.

> I agree with you completely that "degrowth and large near-term population contraction seem... both equally susceptible to the 'how?' critique."  However, implicit here is that while we are facing grave difficulties, there is a viable solution to our current predicament.  Is this realistic?

> Consider the historic record on just climate change.  The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the COP process date from 1992, when the world was about 81% fossil fuel (FF) dependent. Thirty-three years and 28 COP conferences -- dedicated to emissions reductions -- later, the world is still 80% plus FF dependent, and FF use and emissions have increased by about ~40%, are at record levels, and are still rising.  Examine just about any other co-symptom of overshoot and find similar results.

> Meanwhile the UN Population fund argues that reaching eight billion no problem but rather evidence of human success which is why no nation is interested in population planning [1].

> This leads me to believe that  the world is in a true predicament. There is no solution, only some potentially disastrous outcome.

> Bill

>

> [1] https://www.unfpa.org/news/population-bomb-bust-%E2%80%93-or-boon-new-unfpa-report-debunks-8-myths-about-world-8-billion#:~:text=Myth%201:%20There%20are%20too,of%20welcome%20increases%20in%20long<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.unfpa.org/news/population-bomb-bust-**B-or-boon-new-unfpa-report-debunks-8-myths-about-world-8-billion*:*:text=Myth*201:*20There*20are*20too,of*20welcome*20increases*20in*20long__;4oCTI34lJSUlJSUlJQ!!NCZxaNi9jForCP_SxBKJCA!XCdhgroTGQrWhjdSP3ie-o7eT5DpKz-tHEGh8UWEAGRSCQ1HQNzG0GmS2VTnlGRp2vTxIWJgsQvc0TkxZb92U-nfL8wNvz4$>

>

>

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:03 PM Joel Millward-Hopkins <joel.millw...@unil.ch<mailto:joel.millw...@unil.ch>> wrote:

> Dear Bill,

>

> I can accept that argument that those of us looking into more radical economic and demand-side solutions to climate and ecological crisis have a tendency to avoid mentioning global population, despite it being an obviously important driver (I have in the past been guilty of this myself).

>

> What I don't see, however, is how reducing the human population by 33% (which I think you are suggesting?) is any more realistic that the ambitions of degrowth. Consider that the main billionaire lining up behind Trump has 11 children and is of the opinion that our problem is underpopulation, and that many of the less-rich behind Trump would like to see a blanket abortion ban in the most high-consuming country of the world.

>

> In short, degrowth and large near-term population contraction seem to me both equally susceptible to the 'how?' critique — the latter probably more so.

>

> Another point is that the world imagined by degrowth includes most of the things that serve to non-coercively reduce population — education, healthcare, women's rights, higher incomes in the Global South.

>

> e.g., https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1611386113<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1611386113__;!!NCZxaNi9jForCP_SxBKJCA!XCdhgroTGQrWhjdSP3ie-o7eT5DpKz-tHEGh8UWEAGRSCQ1HQNzG0GmS2VTnlGRp2vTxIWJgsQvc0TkxZb92U-nfgl5E2RU$>

>

> I personally would see a lower global population (even 33% lower) as a welcome side effect of a transition to a more just global economic system.

>

> Best,

> Joel

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Jones DN <jo...@bigpond.com>

> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 2:39:48 PM

> To: Rees, William E.

> Cc: Philip Vergragt; ash...@rizomafieldschool.com; giorgo...@gmail.com; sco...@googlegroups.com; Joel Millward-Hopkins; Carol Bardi; Oskar.Wo...@uab.cat; jlb...@gmail.com; van...@oneearthliving.org; richard...@gmail.com; eco...@lists.riseup.net; R&D Barcelona; degrowt...@lists.riseup.net; REAL-Barcelona-Lausanne; macroeconomi...@lists.posteo.de

> Subject: Refrigerant Gas Compression

>

> [CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

> Nice example (see article link) of Technology, The Energy-Complexity Spiral, and associated positive and negative feedback loops operating in Sabin Roman's model.

>

> See:

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-01-28/air-conditioning-changed-australia-technology-heat-comfort/104741512<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-01-28/air-conditioning-changed-australia-technology-heat-comfort/104741512__;!!NCZxaNi9jForCP_SxBKJCA!XCdhgroTGQrWhjdSP3ie-o7eT5DpKz-tHEGh8UWEAGRSCQ1HQNzG0GmS2VTnlGRp2vTxIWJgsQvc0TkxZb92U-nfAbypftg$>

>

> Air Con feedbacks

> Positive Loop - Energy and Materials    Negative Loop - Lifestyle

> Air Con Unit construction       High density High Rise living

> Air Con Unit decommissioning/recycling  Worsening ecol overshoot incl climate change

> Commuting       enables longer urban commuting

> High Density High Rise living   enables office work

> Building in less habitable areas        enables consumerism etc

> Building design increases societal Complexity and the Spiral

> Electricity demand      Health impacts

> HCFC-22 release - GHG

> Promotes/enables Overshoot and Societal Complexity

> Psychology of "comfort"

>

> <Feedback loops example Air Con.jpg>

>

> ==============================================================================

> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 01:36:12 +0000

> "\"Rees, William E.\"" (via degrowth-world Mailing List) <degrowt...@lists.riseup.net<mailto:degrowt...@lists.riseup.net>> wrote:

>

> Hi all --

> Studies of particular cases can yield interesting results and transferable lessons. However, I’m not sure we need more studies and analysis of the basic issue.  It’s pretty clear that the world is in overshoot (too many people consuming and polluting too much).  To fix overshoot – i.e., to move toward ‘sustainable production and consumption’ – there must be a great absolute reduction in global economic throughput.  This can be achieved through simpler lifestyles (lower consumption) or smaller populations or both.

> But there is a problem with emphasis on lowering consumption; two billion people are still in relative poverty and (justifiably) deserve more consumption, another two billion are better off and still want more and the richest half of humanity are, in general reluctant to give up what they have and are being persuaded by all the ‘public relations’ and advertising power of MTI corporations to want more.  I am not aware of any country in which even a significant minority are joining the voluntary simplicity movement en masse. Some people do so act, of course, which gives the degrowth movement illustrative examples and, conceivably, if resources become scarce and prices rise (etc., etc.) such leadership will assist the majority to make the shift.  In the meantime, I strongly suspect global economic throughput will continue to rise as long as energy supplies hold out.

> Which brings me to the point I was trying to make in my original comment on the Kallis et al. paper.  It really is important to ‘factor in’ population issues in any broadcast strategy for degrowth.  Fertility rates and absolute populations are already falling in several high-income countries; the data show clearly that the same transition happens even in relatively poor countries if women have greater economic independence and free access to family planning education and birth control technologies.  In short, population planning works and can make a significant contribution to reducing overshoot in the relatively short term—it will accelerate the fall in fertility rates, quicken the time to peak population and ultimately significantly reduce the numbers of people who will suffer or perish in the event of climate chaos, global energy shortages, the breakdown of global supply chains, etc.

> Tom Murphy’s demographic model (shared by Ashley) provides additional support for the argument that lowering fertility will have significant effects on the global population trajectory.

> Let me be clear about my bottom line: IMHO, H. sapiens is not much different from other ‘K’-strategic species; we are inherently prone to boom-bust population dynamics (see Rees 2020).  From this perspective, humanity is nearing the peak of a one-off boom-bust population cycle.  Collapse will come probably within this century; informed people should be doing what they can to soften the landing—yes, promote material degrowth but bring in a major population planning component.

> While our species will not go extinct, we should be anticipating smaller populations living much simpler, locally-focused lives. The long-term carrying capacity of Earth is probably in the vicinity one billion (early 19th century level before fossil fuels caught on) but possibly less given the depleted state of essential so-called ‘natural capital’ (And this assumes we can avoid a nuclear conflagration among competing nations on the way down).

> Good cheer to all,

> Bill

>

> Reference

> Rees, W. 2020. The fractal biology of plague and the future of civilization. The Journal of Population and Sustainability. 5, 1 (Dec. 2020), 15–30. Available free at https://doi.org/10.3197/jps.2020.5.1.15<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.3197/jps.2020.5.1.15__;!!NCZxaNi9jForCP_SxBKJCA!XCdhgroTGQrWhjdSP3ie-o7eT5DpKz-tHEGh8UWEAGRSCQ1HQNzG0GmS2VTnlGRp2vTxIWJgsQvc0TkxZb92U-nf0aEqlec$>