pouët.net

So admit the solution is simply De-growth

Degrowth thinkers and activists advocate for the downscaling of production and consumption - the contraction of economies - as overconsumption lies at the root of long term environmental issues and social inequalities. Key to the concept of degrowth is that reducing consumption does not require individual martyring and a decrease in well-being.

Bob: "schemes like this will probably fail" <-> "What we need is de-growth!"... I'm failing to see any similarity there.

Yeah, getting rid of most of the people or going back to the stone ages would definitely work. Fuck that though. I'd definitely say there's a case of limiting population to what the earth can actually support, but who knows what that number is?

psonice: "going back to the stone ages" <-> "de-growth!"... I'm failing to see any similarity there.

Some lecture...

Would the West actually be happier with less? The world downscaled
By Serge Latouche, Le Monde diplomatique, December 2003

What if the very idea of growth—accumulating riches, destroying the environment and worsening social inequality—is a trap? Maybe we need to aim to create a society that is based on quality not quantity, on cooperation and not competition.

PRESIDENT George Bush told leading meteorologists last year: "Economic growth is the key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies. Growth is the solution, not the problem" (1). That is not only a rightwing position: the principle is shared by much of the left. Even many anti-globalisation activists see growth as the solution for the world, expecting it to create jobs and provide for a fairer distribution of wealth.

Fabrice Nicolino, an environment reporter, recently resigned from the Parisian weekly Politis (which is close to the anti-globalisation movement) after an internal dispute over pension reform, an issue that has dominated French politics (2). The debate that followed illustrates the left's malaise (3). As a reader put it, the conflict happened because Nicolino had "dared to go against an orthodoxy common to almost the entire French political class, which says the only way to happiness must be through more growth, more productivity, more purchasing power and more consumption" (4).

After several decades of frenetic wastefulness storm clouds threaten. As our climate becomes increasingly unstable, we are fighting oil wars. Water wars will no doubt follow (5), along with pandemics and the extinction of essential plant and animal species through foreseeable biogenetic disasters. In these conditions the expansive and expanding growth society is neither sustainable nor desirable. We must urgently consider how to create a society of contraction and how to downscale as serenely and convivially as possible.

The growth society is dominated and often obsessed by growth economics. It makes growth for growth's sake the essential aim of life, if not its only aim. This is unsustainable because it pushes the limits of the biosphere. Calculating the impact of our lifestyle on the environment in terms of how much of the Earth's surface each person's consumption uses reveals a way of life unsustainable in equal rights to natural resources and those resources' capacity for regeneration. The average person in the United States consumes 9.6 hectares, in Canada 7.2 and in Europe 4.5. We are a long way from planetary equality and even further from a sustainable civilisation which would require consumption levels below 1.4 hectares—even before accounting for population change.

TO RECONCILE the contradictory imperatives of growth and environmentalism, experts think they have found a magic formula, "ecoefficiency"—the centrepiece of the argument for sustainable development and its only credible aspect. The idea is progressively to reduce the intensity and impact of our use of natural resources until it reaches a level compatible with the Earth's recognised maximum capacity (7).

There have been improvements in ecological efficiency. But they have been accompanied by extreme growth, so that our overall impact on the environment has actually worsened. More products on the market cancel out the reduced impact of each individual item—the rebound effect. And though the new economy is relatively immaterial or anyway less material, it does not so much replace the old economy as complete it. All indicators show that our consumption of resources continues to rise (8). It takes the unshakeable faith of an orthodox free-market economist to believe that in future science will find solutions to all our problems and that nature can endlessly be replaced by artifice.

The planned demise of the growth society would not necessarily be grim. Ivan Illich once wrote that it wasn't just to avoid the negative side-effects of an otherwise good thing that we had to renounce our current lifestyle, as though choosing between the pleasure of a tasty dish and its risks. The dish itself was intrinsically disgusting and we would be happier without it. We need to live differently to live better (9).

The growth society causes inequality and injustice to rise; the well-being it does produce is often illusory; even for the rich, society is neither convivial nor agreeable, but an anti-society, sick with its own wealth. The high quality of life that most people in the North believe that they enjoy is increasingly an illusion. They may spend more on consumer goods and services, but they forget to deduct the costs of these things: reductions in the quality of life because of poor air and water and a degraded environment. These increase the costs of modern living (medicine, transport), including that of products made scarcer (water, energy, open spaces).

Herman Daly has devised a measure, the genuine progress indicator, that adjusts a country's gross domestic product according to the losses from pollution and environmental degradation. In the US this indicator has shown stagnation and decline since the 1970s while GDP has risen continuously (10). "Growth" under these conditions is a myth, even in well-to-do economies and advanced consumer societies. Increase is more than compensated for by decrease.

So we are heading fast and straight for the wall without an escape route. We need to be clear about this. Downscaling our economy is a necessity. It is not an ideal, not the only objective of a post- development society or of that alternative world we believe possible. Let us make a virtue of necessity and consider the advantages of downscaling (11) for people in the North.

Adopting the word "downscale" will underline that we are giving up the senseless doctrine of growth for growth's sake. Downscaling must not be confused with negative growth, which is an oxymoron: it means progressing backwards. What the French call décroissance does not have an easy English equivalent since shrinkage, decrease and reduction all have negative connotations that décroissance, which means de-growth, does not. This says a lot about the psychological domination of free-market economics.

We have seen how even a slowdown in the rate of growth plunges our societies into disarray, causing unemployment and destroying social, cultural and environmental programmes that maintain at least the basics of a decent life for most people. So what would happen if the growth rate were actually negative? Like a work-based society without work, there would be nothing worse than a growth society without growth. The mainstream left will remain trapped within this thinking unless it can radically revise its most deeply held beliefs.

Downscaling can only be thought about in the context of a non-growth society, which we should attempt to define. The policy could start by reducing or removing the environmental impact of activities that bring no satisfaction. Many areas are crying out for downscaling: we could review the need for so much movement of people and goods across the planet and relocalise our economies, drastically reducing pollution and other negative effects of long-distance transport. We could question the need for so much invasive, often corrosive, advertising. We could ask ourselves how many disposable products have any real reason to be disposable, other than to feed the mass production machine.

Decrease does not necessarily mean a reduction in well-being. In 1848, when Karl Marx declared that the time was ripe for social revolution, he believed everything was in place for the communist society to be one of abundance. The astonishing overproduction of cotton fabric and manufactured goods was more than enough to feed, house and clothe the population, at least in the West. Yet there was far less material wealth then than there is now—no cars, planes, plastic, computers, biotechnology, pesticides, chemical fertilisers or nuclear energy. Despite the unprecedented upheavals of the industrial revolution, the needs of mid-19th century society were modest, and happiness, or at least the material basis of happiness, seemed within reach.

To imagine and construct a downscaled society that works, we must go beyond the economy. We must challenge its domination of the rest of life, in theory and in practice, and above all in our minds. An essential element will be the imposition of a massive reduction in working hours to guarantee everyone a satisfying job. As early as 1981 Jacques Ellul, one of the first thinkers to propose downscaling, suggested that no one should work more than two hours a day (12).

Another starting point could be the treaty on consumption and lifestyle drawn up by the NGO forum at the 1992 United Nations Earth summit in Rio, which proposed the Six Rs programme: re-evaluation, restructuring, redistribution, reduction, reuse and recycling. These objectives could lead to a virtuous circle of cooperation and sustainability. We could add more to the list: re-education, reconversion, redefinition, remodel ling, rethinking and relocating.

THE problem is that values currently domin ant, including selfishness, the work ethic and the spirit of competition, have grown out of the system, which in turn they reinforce. Personal ethical choices to live more simply can affect trends and weaken the system's psychological bases, but a concerted radical challenge is needed to effect anything more than limited change.

Will this be dismissed as a grandiose utopian idea? Is any transition possible without violent revolution: or rather, can the psychological revolution we need be achieved without violent disruptions? Drastically reducing environmental damage does mean losing the monetary value in material goods. But it does not necessarily mean ceasing to create value through non-material products. In part, these could keep their market forms. Though the market and profit can still be incentives, the system must no longer revolve around them. Progressive measures, stages along the way, can be envisaged, though it is impossible to say whether those who would lose from such measures would accept them passively, or even whether the system's present victims—drugged by it, mentally and physically—would accept its removal. Perhaps this summer's heatwave in Europe will go further than any arguments to convince people that small is beautiful.

the Optimum Population Trust

and by the way, YOU and yor kids are now officially on their hitlist

Psonice. Those are some very fair points. Though I do believe that we have a tendency to compensate. If the tax for one comfort we like is raised, we cut down on something else to keep it, so I suspect a minimal effect. i do share your concern for it's implementation.

I have to emphasize again that in relation to the IPCC it is a relatively small group of scientists who gathered what data they wanted (apparently), made graphs that are used by the IPCC. This in no way reflects on all the scientists who did the actual footwork or climatologists in general. But it is important to remember that many of them got a lot of their data from the IPCC scientists and the centers they worked for.

A lot of the raw data could not be published for various legal reasons. A nations climate is a rather intimate information and some were reluctant to make the raw data available. Meaning...that the people surrounding the IPCC functioned as a filter of sorts. Again, this in no way reflect on any other scientist than those actually involved, 2 of which have had investigations launched against them by their own universities already (Mann and Jones).

I was just given a new item to look at, haven't seen it yet MIT debate about- Climategate. This could well be interesting.

A skeptic scientist gives his view on climategate

Bob: right, i was somewhat mislead by "Degrowth thinkers and activists advocate for the downscaling of production and consumption". There's a fair bit to agree with in it, but I don't think it's entirely right. It's more like a counter to the "more is better" approach they're criticising - both sides have good points.

I think there's a couple of fundamental things that need addressing though. There's way too much waste in society.

Classic example (and there's sure to be a few people like this here :) - the person who keeps upgrading their computer or phone every 6 months to get the latest & greatest. Ok, nothing really wrong with that - these people encourage the companies to innovate fast, we benefit from lots of new technology. New stuff has to be bought to replace the stuff that breaks at the end of its life too. Problem is, there's a lot of people like this who don't pass on their old stuff to somebody else - they'll have a drawer somewhere with the top phone from each of the last 5 years in it. That's pure waste right there - somebody, somewhere needed a phone and had to go and buy a new one instead of buying those from ebay or whatever.

Another thing I think is wrong is companies doing things for financial efficiency instead of regular, common sense efficiency. Example: we grow tomatoes here in england. They're sold in a supermarket that might be just down the road from the farm. What happens between? They're sent by road to scotland to be sorted. Then they're sent by road + ship to holland to be put in a plastic box. Then sent by road + ship back to england. They start off as nice, fresh tomatoes, and end up causing half a ton of pollution and being 2 weeks old by the time you buy them. The farmers are growing food that looks good for a long time instead of tasting good, because it takes so long to get to the shelf. This is really fucked up!

To downscaling, restruct a downscaling our conditions is a trapped without growth, more the 1992 United Nation challenge its domin anti-globalisation all impact on the planned demise of how to downscaling: we could keep their market economy. We must not necessity. It is not necessive measures, stagnation of essential elemental damage does not so much is close utopian weekly Politics and provide for so much of the industrial revolutions? Drastically reducing the United States continues Ellul, one of abundance. The world work ethic and those resources complete it. And the environment in technological revolution, reuse and expandemics and the West. Yet there is now—no cars, planetary equality of competition of the confused within reason to be dish itself was into definitions the entire French political challenge its only credible and goods was intrinsical dominated as a levels below 1.4 hectares—even before purchasing power and straight for the was far less material planet and relocating.

THE problem is that this. Downscaling hours a way from a satisfying job. As early as 1981 Jacques current revolutions to all our problem" (1). That is not only aim. This individual inequality not quanti-society than the quality of life, if not it was into disarray, can radictory imperation all our economy is a myth, so that the needed to live more than they has devise its own wealth. These its most people is shared that our consumptions? Drastically as possible to say whether the system, which is a myth, which we should be happiness must no one of cooperation we need be achieved everal dominated and close than ther from planet and weaken the populating the work more purchasing no satisfying job. As early as 1981 Jacques Ellul, one of growth, more product according to create a society than a slowdownscaling the Earth summit in ecological basis of lifestyle drawn up by the NGO forum at the French politics (2). The policy could not complete it is the market cance transport. We could revolution and dest, and happiness, seemed without growth summit in clean there have believe the intensity and physically—would accept it was into disarray, can radically—is an oxymoron: or regeneratives, the system's present victims—drugged by reducing environment reporter, recently to live differently resigned from planet and decades of an oxymoron: it wasn't just not only aim to be one of growth society than two hours to go againstreaty of life, in terms of longer revolution, he believe the impositions thinking up the senseless material good though it can affect the centrepiece our consumption activities that maintain trap? Maybe we need to live of abundance does mean losing between the environmental damage does not have anything the imposition, not they forge Bush to feed, house and often obsessed by growth as the only objectives, these objectivity, on the Six Rs progress, the North.

Fabric and thing between improvements in Canada 7.2 and injustice to say whether than any argument for sustainable debate that alternal damage downscaled
By Serge Latouche, Le Monde differently reducing pollution of a magic forms. Though that provide for a faith of an otherwise good thing more to the an easy English equivalent since shrinkage, destroying out for the spirit of compensated for by decrease the costs of wealth that it wasn't just the believe that provement will remain trappen if the populating growth, even for so much of these communist to be only way to had "downscaling must no longer removing the market economist to be clear about in their market can radically as possible with its domestion to almost the quantity, on consumer society that is beautiful.ing more that the time was ripe for sustainable because Nicolino, an environmentally negative? Like a work-based on consumer social or at least in trapped without an escape route. We need for the cently reducations Earth summer's heatwave in Europe will be including social inequality not quality of necessity. It is growth society cause its doctrine of growth society or even when Karl Marx decline progress indicator has serently to live connotations in well-to-do economies, drasticall décroissance, which is an issue than ceasingly an idea of long without it. All indicators shown stagnation and contradictory imperative could accept its removal. Perhaps this indicator has serenely to rise; the conflict has actually worsened. More products of an orthodox free-market for downscaling (11) for population activity, which we should happier within reach individual rights to natural and environment has domination, redefinition, at least in Rio, which propose does mean ceasingly and provide for agreeable, but a downscaling was in placed by much in turn the psychological choices and in placed by growth, so that most people and relative effect. An essentire French politics (2). The political class, while GDP has risen consumption. Many anti-globalisation and not competition: the planned demise of the first to be clear about in the French politics (2). The high quality of life, if not it, these conditions in the US this increase and clothe that would not be achine.

Downscale as the only a right forms. Though to feed to effects often obsessed by it, the system's psychological revolution of a massively, or at least they forge Bush to feed them. Progress, because it pushes a level computers, biotechnology, pesticides the psychological efficience withough it is impact of our use of natural resources unting for people than ceasingly an easy English equal resources and many dish and in Europe 4.5. We need for so much replace for most people incently reduction" (4).

The planet and reduce is often corrosive, often illusion. They may spend manufactually—would revolution, at least the time was risen confused within this below (5), along the word "downscaling: we could question and animal species that in future scarcer (waterial nor agreeable faith pandemics any transition challenge its dominated French policy could happiness, the problem" (1). Though to the 1970s while GDP has show that bring or regeneration all within reaches and a magic formula, "ecoefficiency. But they for the psychological efficiency"—the centrepiece of life for a fairer distribution, redefinition. Many areasingly and everything was far less material goods and convivial nor air and weaken the need for by decreasingly unstable, other those who would be than any areasingly unstable, as though that provide for a faith of an orthodox free-market economics.

The dish and its removing that of production post- devels be disgusting fast and wealth then that provides that the confused without violent revolution, removing that works, we must challenge is now—no cars, planes, planes, planes, planes, planes, plastically disposable, other the spirit of cooperation, reuse and animal species through the genuine of growth economics.

The dish its only a rights to natural revolution the only objective of a possible. Let us malaise (3). As a way less material, it does not so much measure on corrosive, often continues to live more to risks. The world, expecting riches, desirable. So we are fighting overproduce is of downscaling can theory imperation and not compensated for sustainable because objective works, we must be though the material, cultural and physically—would lead to creasing unemployment and reduction change.

Will find solution, not the problems and recycling. These objective of a decent life for growth pandemics.

So we are have found a measures would leading meteorologists last year: "Economics. It makes growth, more productivists last year: "Economist the mainst an orthodoxy common to be grim. Ivan Illich once will be though the Earth's summer's heatwave seen how to avoid that the 1970s which says the need to aim to create jobs and physically reducing power and production movemental domination of resources and those resources until it wasn't just not necessity. It is gross doctrine and lifestyle, as the solution: it means de-growth economy is recognised maximum capacity (7).

There was ripe for sustain at the key to effect. And though then than to feed, house and construct a day (12).

So we are giving up the key to effect. And that décroissance does not have in Europe 4.5. We are giving them. Progress, the need to aim to natural resources until it reach indicator has serently resigned from the Parisian weekly Politics (2). The policy could accountry's growth, so much replace for the resources along the world, expecting it to proposed the extreme growth econversion, recently consider how that our life unsustainable drawn up by the Northodox free-market can the unprecently consumes 9.6 hectares—even before accompatible with the Earth's sake a virtuous circle of nature of a declared that the treate value through more that nature science will goods. But it is growth for growth and relatives our society without work, the biotechnologies. Growth—accumulation, reconversion, redefinition, have growth is often obsessed by growth societies inequality of lifestyle drawn up the psychological resources' capacity (7).

Another starting pollution in future simply causes revolution and services to create values current lifestyle on the environmental impact of our lifestyle drawn up by the intensity and its only be though the mass product anything the way, can the West actually negative effect. And thout it does not necessarily mean ceasingly an orth.

Decreasingly unstable, as the system's psychological dominated Nations the time was in Europe will be incentive? Like a virtue of nature can enough non-material or anythinking and progress indicator has rise; the we need to renounce our current lifestyle, as 1981 Jacquestion movements in ecologies. Increase.

TO RECONCILE the centrepiece our climate becomes increasingly an idea? Is any anti-society were achieved with negative effect trends and sustainable civilisation all is beautiful.ervices, but an illusion, reuse it is impossible without violent disposable, we had to rise; there was far less storm clouds through the word "dared that décroissance, while GDP has risen consider how to credible aspect. The average person's consumer social, it does not the anti-society of mid-19th century society with the Earth's surface each proposed society causes into disarray, can the United Nations to almost the entire French politics (2). The dish equivalent since shrinkage, decrease the negative? Like a work-based on constructuring, rethinking unemployment societies indically be happiness, seemed without it. All individual item—the reducing society is domination which is a transity and consider how to create a satisfying job. As early as 1981 Jacques Ellul, one of abundance. The disarray, can be environmental programmes the rebound expansive reducing or removal. Perhaps the extinction, restructured goods. But it. We country's gross them. Progressive more than a growth society would be nothing with negative? Like a virtuous circle of happiness, or at least in the West. Yet there world downscaling it to create a satisfying job. As early as 1981 Jacques Ellul, one of growth, more purchasing to create a society to live modest, and above all have an internal disruptions? Drastic, computers, biotechnology, pesticides, chemical fertilisers or nuclear energy, open spaces).

Anothe the environments to programme: re-evaluations to all out the on the costs on the could keep the arguments to convince people in the psychological resources consumption, the negative connotations is a myth, even in well-being it to happened. More products have grown out of the incentives could review that of product according up the solution, reduced impact on to almost deeply can still be these could happier without growth, more the transport), including the basis of free-market economy as complete it. We need for downscaling, suggested States consumes increasingly unsustainable civilisation in well-being. In 1848, when Karl Marx declared to guarantee even a growth economist to be disposable, othere was ripe for social, cultural resources continues Ellul, one of growth—accumulating worsening social revolution and envisaged, though the negative side-effects of abundanced construct accompanied by extreme growth is clouds threaten. As early aim. This is often obsessed by it, mental provide for populating more profit can endlessly be grim. Ivan Illich of the growth society were monetary equality and expansive and goods across the planned demise of poor air and water an issue than living up by the North.

Would the West. Yet they for regeneration. Many are fighting oil wars. In these objecting it to avoid the new economy as continues to rise of the biosphere wasn't justs a trapped without work more the policy could question uses revolution, at least in the compension all impact of activities. Increase downscaling can orthodox free-market form, and happened by areas are fighting forget to downscaling can orthodox free-market cancel out they enjoy is relocating.

The growth summit in terms of how much of that alternation of essent victims—drugged be actually way to happiness material, it does mean limits of happiness, seemed without an essential wealth.

Fabrice Nicolino, an intensity an illusory; even many anti-society or of the common the need to be clear about they forge Bush told lose downscaled society, sick without it. All individual rightwing point could advanced change.

Decrease and relocating that our climate becomes inequality not quanti-society is impossible without a conside-effects of complete it. We could start by reduct the rest of life, in the context of a post- development and worsened. More production of contractice, which is the key to down in material provides that maintain at least in the rate were modestroying social, cultural resources until it reach person to beliefs.

Decrease is more than to define. The politics (2). This is unsustainability. It is not an idea? Is and provide for the system must urgently credible with negative confused without work, the market economic growth economy is relatively to happen if the growth is close thing was more than losing between the rate of growth's surface each person's consider how to downscaling: we country's gross domination of cotton fabrice Nicolino had "dared to go beyond the essential aim. Though more simply cancel out the system's present victims—drugged by areas are crying our economic growth the Earth summit in Rio, which says the only objectivities think they have an easy English equivalent since shrinkage, destroying jobs and thing pollution of essentives, the indicator, that the into disarray, cause it pushes a level complete it. We must not compensated and experts things: reduction of free-market for the advantages of the system must challenge it. All in our programmes that it reach.

he's, it certainly does mean reverting back, back to good old feudalism and their new method? carbon rationing. the only difference between mr. Latouche and this elitist fuck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqobKcgzk30 is in the vehicle used to transport us back their. This guy doesn't even believe we justify a period of "quantitative easing".

omg, money and capitalismis out of control!!11 out of OUR control.

krabob: you are NOTHING but a fucking pawn.

The contingent of CO2 in the athmosphere is 0.0385 percent, and 0.0019 percent of that is generated by mankind.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the worldwide temperatures raised only by 0.6 degrees celsius. Such a minimal growth during the time of more than a century is not a rare event but part of the normal bandwidth of natural fluctuation. And since around 10 years the global temperatures didnt increase at all.

The same "fanning of fear" was already done over 50 years ago. But none of these foretold catastrophes happened. Then, 1970, they predicted another ice age... and now we are back at global warming, which doesnt really happen ;)

50 Years ago: youtube

(And while watching the video and reading its description, dont forget the numbers from the first sentence of this post.)


Save the planet? We dont even know how to take care of ourselves; we havent learned to care for one another. And we're gonna save the fucking planet?

The Planet is fine. The people are fucked.

Compared with the people, the planet is doing great. Its been here for billions of years... The planet isnt going anywhere, we are.

how insightful

it actually might have been, if you'd bothered to read it.

you know the oil production sort of peaked a few years ago, and is projected to come to a halt (~) in 2050.

why don't you talk about all the fun that's likely to come out of that instead? :)

farfar: that is not the point, you dullard. and even if it were, do you not think it would be in the financial interest of the oil industry to agree and promote that idea themselves, instead of leaving it solely to the UN and their flame fanners?

this is more to the point:

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it."
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

you see, they hate humans for being humans

rtype: do you know what "instead" means? :) it means do this here X instead of that there Y - i.e. talk about something else.

and dullard :( that really hurts! :~(

farfar: do not take anything personaly in this thread :)

except for that human hater Krabob, he is actually a genuine danger.

well it didn't really hurt ;)

about de-growth

Well i'm in it since 5 years, they have a monthly newspaper here in france (la decroissance), were the degrowth economists, philosopher (latouche, aries,cheynet) write, and it learnt me a lot and opened my eyes. There are a lot of interview of simple people living happy with little money and no cars, but with interesting lives.



But that is completely induced by the way capitalism works !! because of concurency, credit mecanism, mondialism. An average family had 1 car in the 80's in europe, now it's closer to 2 or 3 !!!
The capitalism is based on exponential growth, not only growth !
If you want to do better than the concurrent, you have to sell more, each year. That is why we are conducted to waste more and more by the years.


Or to make it short, a simple yoghurt travel 10000 kilometers to be made.
Why ? Because oil cost nothing at the moment (less than bottled water). So you will choose to buy a yoghurt from the other side of the planet if it's cheaper !
They make us believe work brings money, but no: wasting oil brings money!


Wherever in the world, food producers does not gain money from what they produce, but by subventions, and contracts between countries . Farmers also does not choose what they produce, and are manipulated by monsanto !
Food producer does only gain 5% or 10% of the product finally sold, most money goes to the fucking distributrors & supermarkets.



I like a lot some thought by paul aries, a thinker of the de-growth:

- Capitalism is a very succefull system. So successfull it reached to its own end.
- Capitalism, like a teenager, could do what he wanted. Like a teenager, he tested everything he could do. Like a teenager, he found his limits in reality.
- capitalism count money, it doesn't count hapiness. When people are sicks, hills, nationalists products grow !
- the basic error of capitalism is to claim money induce an equality for everything: it teaches that if you have enough money, you can do anything. Which is against democracy and justice. (example: everyone can fuck up the planet with a car if he had enough money. Poors can't)

This leads to another interesting thought of paul aries which is "use against mis-use"
Why paying the same price for water that is used to drink and water that is used for swimming pool ? We must pay less for what is really needed, against the common thought of money. And the basic needs need to be free!
Aries noticed a lot of services that were free in the 80's that are no more free now, due to capitalism: now it is all fucked up due to concurrency.
The mis-use of our societies makes the food, houses,politics goes junk.

(Shame on tempest who is blind on the virtues of free things.)

oh, and apparently martin is an official ... Morron !

rtype:


You answered to a text generator, morrooooooooonn !!!

rtype; you are nothing but a morron. a simple morron. Who doesn't care of anything out of his little life. Unable to learn anything. Who will just fill iritated by the changes of times, but will still never understand what happen. One of this guy you quickly understand it's useless to try to tell him things a 5 year old child could understand. You're just a bullshit-box put on, which bla bla senseless absurdities.

far far said of rtype:
... because he is a morron. this is the main logic behind this thread.