Still missing the point
Common misconceptions of degrowth
Degrowth is gaining momentum and capitalist shills are spouting poorly researched interpretations in popular media. Contrary to what critics claim, degrowth is not designed to make people poor – though of course social equality has implications for the rich.
A financial gaze trivializes non-monetary values (such as socio-ecological values), prioritising anthropocentric real estate development and resource extraction above everything else. Ecosystems are bulldozed to make way for (sub)urban expansion. They are ripped apart by extractive processes, fragmented by highways and roads, and poisoned by toxic tailings and other disposed waste. It's no surprise that the consumption of antidepressants and weight loss drugs is on the rise.
The pursuit of growth reduces the liveability of the planet for money. Degrowth challenges money as the principal measure of value and proposes we live lightly to preserve the Earth's natural wealth. This shift in perspective changes everything from employment, consumption, development, and money to how we live everyday. Calls to cut down mountains for lithium are transformed into calls for an end to cars and the transformation of parking lots and freeways into gardens.
Another critique of degrowth points to a recent decline in emissions that occurred in a few countries alongside economic growth. This is used as evidence that growth can be decoupled from emissions. But it's one thing for emissions to fall slightly as more green technology is rolled out – it's yet another to achieve the emission reductions necessary to avoid ecological collapse. We still have a long way to go since global emissions continue to rise. The atmosphere doesn’t recognize national borders.
Greenhouse gas emissions aren't the only boogeymen of modernity. A narrow focus on carbon fails to address the other human caused social and ecological crises that are not necessarily linked to emissions. The ongoing mass extinction event driven primarily by the loss of wildlife habitat, the growing quantities of other types of pollution (plastic, antibiotic, light, and radioactive, to name a few), and the decline in social wellbeing. The current race to mine as many critical metals as possible for the so-called 'green transition' is increasingly putting people and ecosystems at risk1. Degrowth calls for a holistic approach toward reducing society’s ecological impact while improving social conditions.
In his book Growth, economist Daniel Susskind makes the absurd argument that happiness grows proportionately with wealth. If that were true, the richest man would be happy beyond measure. In reality he's microdosing ketamine to manage depression. More convincing research shows that wealth has only a limited impact on happiness.
Rather than searching for a correlation between happiness and wealth, we should look at the connection between wealth and compassion. The rich tend to have less compassion than poorer people, but that’s a chicken or egg paradox. Is a rich person lacking in compassion because they are rich or did they become rich due to a lack of compassion?
The demands of the financial gaze has us doing pointless work for the sake of money. Workers are required to use ecologically destructive methods and equipment to reduce costs. Employers expand their businesses by refusing to pay living wages while raising prices. For the sake of growth, quality is sacrificed for quantity.
Rather than the senseless drive for ever more money, degrowth advocates for shorter work days and social systems of mutual support in the place of monetary schemes. The work we pursue needs to improve our collective socio-ecological condition. That might mean work becomes more intensive – isolated farms made up of vast fields of industrial monoculture are transformed into closeknit communities of diverse small-scale organic farms. Abused sweatshop workers become highly skilled and valued artisans.
Proponents of growth argue that more growth is needed to pull people out of poverty. In their view, continued growth addresses poverty through corporate expansion and higher employment. The rich are never afraid to use the poor as an excuse to stay rich.
Capitalism relies on a reserve army of unemployed surplus workers kept impoverished and desperate. When workers demand better conditions, the destitute are ready to replace them to avoid work stoppages and improvements to social conditions. This is likely the future intention behind robot development.
Better working conditions, shorter working days, environmental regulations, democracy, and rights for marginalised people are not automatic outcomes of economic growth, as economists like to claim, but the hard-won victories of continuous class struggle against the interests of the rich.
According to the World Food Program USA, $40 billion is needed every year between 2022 and 2030 to end world hunger. I added up the collective wealth of Forbes 900 billionaires (as of May 22, 2025). Even after leaving each billionaire with a million dollars of wealth, they still have enough money to donate $40 billion each year for 292 years. This relatively small group of extremely wealthy people could solve world hunger 36.5 times today without any additional growth.
Degrowth doesn't advocate for poverty. It calls for limits. Only the richest stand to lose money in a degrowth society, and there would need to be support systems in place for the rich to transition. Money can be seen as a drug and the rich as money addicts.
If all life essentials are free (healthcare, education, housing, food, clothing, transportation), whatever costs remain are only for non-essential items. Money is no longer a necessity.
Reflecting on what would make an ideal society, Peter Kropotkin, in The Conquest of Bread, proposes each person contributes a maximum of four hours of labour every day to an essential field of work. This, he suggests, would be enough labour to achieve material sufficiency and an abundance of free time.
In this free time we could focus on getting enough exercise, cooking healthy meals, growing our own food, getting involved in our communities, participating in democratic processes, spending time with friends and family, and pursuing hobbies that, as Vonnegut wrote, will make our souls grow.
In conclusion, growth and degrowth are two opposing systems of value. Growth aims for financial maximization no matter the socio-ecological costs. Degrowth focuses on what is real: the pressing need for ways of living that nurture the flourishing of socio-ecological systems. This incompatibility is what critics of degrowth seem to miss.
What I've written here doesn't represent the opinions of every degrowth activist. Degrowth is as diverse as any democratic movement should be. A special thank you to Alexandra Daum for the first round of edits. Thank you Damian Penston for the second round of edits.
 | A guest post by
|
I think the meaning of poor differs between degrowthers and its critics. Poor to me means something like "not being able to obtain the basic necessities and being unable to live a happy fulfilling life due to systemic external circumstances." To critics of degrowth, like the author of the Vox article you posted, poor seems to mean not having excessive luxuries.
Unlike what was pointed out in the Vox article, degrowth isn't trying to take away air conditioning or washing machines. On the contrary, products like those and even other luxuries can still exist but should be improved by doing away with planned obsolescence, having the right to repair, and increasing product lifetimes.
The biggest shortfall of degrowth is the name "degrowth" itself.
Nice rebuttal to critiques of degrowth! The number crunching about ending world hunger is particularly powerful.
Regarding decoupling, I wasn't able to access the Vox citation due a paywall, but I wonder if this "absolute decoupling" refers to consumption-based or territorial emissions. For example, Our World in Data notes of US annual emissions, "This data is based on territorial emissions, which do not account for emissions embedded in traded goods." So the apparent fall in US emissions basically means its manufacturing sector has been outsourced, most likely with a corresponding rise in territorial emissions for countries supplying US consumerism. Not much real decoupling at all from what I gather.