Replace the "decay" in its proper place My remarks published in La Libre Belgique
of
July 26, 2010, when I suggested "banning public discussion of" the word
decay because it "now serves the cause," have shocked some members of COPD (Political Movement Objectors Growth). Through one of their spokesmen, Jean-Baptiste Godinot, they responded in an opinion in the same newspaper on August 7, 2010
. In essence, his argument is as follows (I quote): "The emergency is to put offside the dogma of growth, what help the words that do not allow easily recover. Rather that banned the term 'decay' must be specified: this is the decrease of production and consumption when they exceed the thresholds of sustainability. The path outlined by this necessity has the major advantage of being radically opposed to the high productivity and its capitalist version current show more clearly their failure acute. They hold that as a potential liberator and emancipator extraordinary that it is urgent to grasp: the decrease in consumption and production is an ecological necessity, but also a social opportunity to reduce inequality and dispose of the widespread alienation organized by the globalized economy of today. "
I am in full agreement with these ideas, and that I have defended myself in various forms for quite some time . Others have put forward forcefully before Ivan Illich, Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen, Herman Daly, and much later Serge Latouche. There is no question for me to challenge this line, nor to claim abstracting me pretending to be original. The decline, I am for! nevertheless remains a question, which is partly strategic but also covers a very deep human issues: the level of movement citizens, the word "decline" is really the best slogan to bring these ideas? Is it really the key concept that will motivate voters, workers and consumers do not even talk to entrepreneurs, to initiate a trajectory
personal mutation of their philosophy of life and their behavior? What the so-called "declining" (who call themselves rarely so) value in their approach, although their contribution is - impossible to evaluate for themselves, their micro-level - a slowdown rhythms and extended production and consumption, but also and especially
their existential experience of fullness, prosperity not based on property and money, finding joy in the heart of sobriety. It is these experiences then, and only those who are contagious and can then, at the "macro" create a momentum of decline of production and consumption.
Speak directly to "decay" as a way of life, then it will only be the result of choices of people's lives one by one is to believe that the "ecological necessity" may alone motivate a person to change jobs, to accept lower incomes in get rid of his car to consume less. The decrease
macro which I am not in doubt, as a scientist, the imperative will be expedited if, at the microeconomic level, a multitude of people are rethinking and restructuring their lives. And here, the prefix "de-" is a poor motivator. The irony is that proponents of the decay addressing citizens by revealing the overall goal toward which we must go without the word they use -
de-growth - no way of knowing that this overall objective will in everyday life. I know that Jean-Baptiste Godinot and facilitators of COPD have clearly in mind the lifestyle choices that relate to this overall goal, and they themselves often live the joys of a Simple, uncluttered and frugal. But the majority of citizens do not understand this link between the current decay "macro" and "joie de vivre" micro "... Must be taken into account, like it or not.
The sentence which concludes the article by Jean-Baptiste Godinot is also quite revealing of what I say here: "The road named after [meaning: once expressed the need to" macro "of a decrease in the production and consumption], is to make visible, attractive and practical way of living together that is sustainable, just and preferable to our current mode of organization. It is the emancipatory project that growth objectors grow unabated. "I agree! But watch it anyway. Lier" the "path" a "way of life already suggests - quite unintentionally, here - there would look at this collectivist decay. And that is what the word itself suggests that many citizens
lambda : these people, they think, will not only determine the thresholds "macro" sustainability, but they We will also prescribe "the" lifestyle "Descending", which the micro level, go with. Forced reduction, austerity, indoctrination, prohibition, etc..: This is what spontaneously, most citizens of our capitalist democracies hear when they hear the word "decay". They are wrong, I know! But you can not promote a political and economic with words that make people start wrong, who steered the outset.
I do agree that the terms I suggested in the echoing others, like "prosperity without growth of GDP" (Tim Jackson, Peter Victor), "Economic sobriety happy" (Patrick Viveret) or " fullness "(Juliet Schor) can be recovered. But while
can be retrieved by malicious people and bad faith. The term "decay" is no exception, as many economists, more or less complicit in the capitalist logic that they continue to believe liberating vilify the word by linking it to an officer, the gloom, the cult the "still less" and return to the caveman or communism or whatever. Is not there too, recovery?
All the words we use can be recovered by people who do not understand, because it is in their interest (More or less conscious) do not understand. It seems to me that the alliance is better than division. In that sense, yes, I admit not having much better served "the cause" by suggesting to simply ban the word decay. It does not just say, as suggested by Jean-Baptiste Godinot. It must be considered at the right level - which in my opinion, means we are not talking systematically citizens 'micro' in terms of decay, which is and must remain a concept of "macro". The ideas of frugality or fullness are happy, for their part (and despite their recovery dishonest always possible), located at the micro level that suitable for public debate.
It is therefore to cultivate, in the movement of the growth target (which expression also seems to me far more meaningful than "decline" - why, perhaps, the movement itself does s not call mpd ... Political Movement Descending ?...) - it is growing, so a healthy distinction between macroeconomics of reduced rates and extended (un-GDP growth, de- globalization, re-localization, de-financialization, etc.). microeconomics and construction of new lifestyles (primacy to ties on the property, sobriety happy, fullness, etc.)..
The project's objective of growth is the joy and fullness of frugality in the face of declining production and consumption. The two levels are not separable, and it is harmful they are. It then makes some people think that the decrease will be a constraint on gloomy and discouraging their lifestyle, and other than the joy of life can happen macroeconomic reductions. Simply, the level of debate
citizens is indeed the field of life choices and happiness that counts, not directly
the level of macroeconomic management of GDP.
So I continue to think that the word "Decay" should be stationed outside the public debate
, not because it would be a hidden secret and shameful, but because it does not correctly describe the life choices that are to be developed. (These choices are plural, so it is risky to speak, as does Jean-Baptiste Godinot, "the" way of life that corresponds to the decay.) As pointed out by thinkers such as Isabel or as Juliet Schor Cassiers The purpose of life, existence as a family, practice, philosophical or spiritual
not decay, but
good growth, which occurs spontaneously in our lives when Leaving aside, happily, with relief, attitudes and values "micro" which induce, in terms "macro", the dogma of growth. The decrease
"macro" goes hand in hand and can not succeed without the growth "micro" - not just any, but a "growth- had" personal values the extension links The growth of knowledge, extension of time given, etc.. [The prefix eu-
in Greek means "good," "harmonious," etc.]. The challenge, and it's size, is to understand how to articulate a sustainable manner for personal growth and collective decay.
While I do agree with objectors that the reductions in macroeconomic growth will be inevitable sooner or later, since the ecological limits are close to appealing to us so brutal. Hence, obviously, the whole raison d'etre of this blog: the key issue in the coming years is the
collective and personal transition as progressive and sustainable as possible towards a sustainable economy. So we will all, in our current lifestyles, feel the limitations and constraints from a degraded environment and even become hostile global warming, rising Ocean, extreme weather events, depletion of fossil fuels, etc.. Decay "macro" So bite with greater force on our unsustainable lifestyles that we will not have time discovered, or rediscovered, the positive virtues of a frugal life and the joys of a real existence more relational, more local, slower, less crowded. But the issue of transition is precisely to avoid at all costs, that the disastrous effects of a decrease unplanned, imposed by nature, not violently destroy our illusions and do nomads of us staring at a darkened world .
they like it or not, those who use the word "decrease" are immediately raise the specter of sustained reduction of poverty not selected, the regression imposed. This is not what they want nor what they preach, I know, but
thus . And the reaction of citizens to this kind of evocation, I guessed you have lived for tens of times at conferences and public debates: WinCE on what we have, refusal to consider the future otherwise, rejecting the ideas of frugality and simple joy, blind thrust towards "growth" and the continuation of the liberal model. It Regrettably, I know, but that's
. The collective decay must be presented as the result of changing patterns of personal growth - not as a precondition imposed a life change. So, do not talk so much decay, talking about spirituality, happiness, report back to nature and to others, social justice and fighting for human rights in the context of a critique existential individual consumerism and Workaholism ambient. The youngest citizens, in particular, are much more motivated by these issues then that a macroeconomics of the "decline" certainly justified, but always placed at the wrong level and in the wrong place in the debates.
