I'll add in that "we should get rid of all these modern flimflam" is generally a rallying cry by quite well off people who choose not to see the obvious future of poor people getting squelched as resources dry up.
There are a lot of problems faced by modern society, and those problems are uncomfortably complicated. Most people don't understand the details of them. However, the incredible productivity of modern humans is one of several fragile bricks in the wall between us and the unspeakably horrible lifestyles of centuries ago.
People may not like industrial society. It may even kill us all, looking at the gently escalating tensions between nuclear powers. But the fact is it has been far better than all the alternatives on the table. The grass is not greener over there.
>I'll add in that "we should get rid of all these modern flimflam" is generally a rallying cry by quite well off people who choose not to see the obvious future of poor people getting squelched as resources dry up.
Poor people like degrowth just fine. When they let them, that is, and not, e.g. take their land and their forests and their livelihoods.
Also, that the first world pro-growthers care for the "poor people" is hypocrisy of the highest order. If it was a choice between them letting the third world "peasants" die of hunger in exchange for the first world continuing their "way of life" and "progress" they wouldn't even blink.
In fact, it's not even theoritical, this has been a choice the first world consistently made for centuries: milking them, impoverising them, stealing their lands and resources, and even making them downright their subjects for centuries to fuel their own greed and growth.
That is the thing though, you're privileging good intentions above good results. None of the pro-growthers "care" about China, they just like the benefits bring to them personally. Nevertheless, more than a billion people you consider peasants thrive.
The degrowthers literally want them impoverished so that they can score whatever weird points care earns them in their twisted framework. It is a sick philosophy. Hopefully they keep losing battles long enough for Africa to get up on its feet.
> and the unspeakably horrible lifestyles of centuries ago.
That sounds like an over-the-top fairy tale to constructed justify modern society.
I assume by "unspeakably horrible lifestyle" you don't mean something like "lack of color television." That's an assumption I have to state, because there are a surprising number of people who say they consider the lack of modern creature-comforts to be something "unspeakably horrible" and that they'd rather die than be without them.
That said, I'm sure you could cherrypick an "unspeakably horrible lifestyle" out of the history books, just like I can cherrypick an "unspeakably horrible lifestyle" out of the news. I also wouldn't be surprised if the ultimate causes are the same or similar for both. Such cherry-picked examples don't speak to typical experience and don't speak to what's possible.
The vast majority of people alive centuries ago were subsistence farmers. They were malnourished, overworked, underpaid, illiterate, had virtually no access to effective healthcare, and had no civil rights. Also, no color TV. By virtually any measure the quality of life in modern society globally is orders of magnitude better than it was centuries ago.
> the incredible productivity of modern humans is one of several fragile bricks in the wall between us and the unspeakably horrible lifestyles of centuries ago.
I think it's important to have perspective when speaking of history (and understand how difficult and perilous to obtain the correct perspective). I am far from against technology, but in many ways past lives don't seem so uncontroversially horrible to me.
Disclaimer: I am not a historian (or anthropologist)! Some of my claims may contain an innacurate portrayal of history or other people (please correct me if that's the case). However, I wouldn't write it without feeling somewhat confident about my claims.
If you were a peasant or a farmer in the past, that's what you did: farming throughout the day. I believe farmers in general worked fewer hours than we do now, because you were constrained by daylight (and sometimes winter and seasons). Again, I prefer modern life, but you can look at say the Amish, or several surviving pre-industrial societies which include native tribes to get a feel for their lives[1]. The least I can say is: it's not the hell many would naively expect.
Was their life horrible? I don't think so; farming work is very hard but not in a horrible way (some people take up farming as a hobby really); diseases were largely outside people's control. People tend to think Living longer = Linearly better. I have my doubts. The lack of comforts too is something that you get used to: in the end, most things turn into a sort of game. The game we play today is being glued to a screen typing symbols, interpreting data and rules. The game people played was farming, herding, crafting, with the occasional bureaucratic jobs. That's not to say I don't prefer living today. However, someone from back then could see us in some ways in equally dystopic lights: people glued to tiny screens watching videos, depressed in their homes, etc.. We have far higher rates of obesity today.
I think the progress doesn't come from obvious things like health and comfort. Progress is largely afforded by those things. Because we're healthy, or rather, in some sense we can in theory be healthy, there are several activities we can do that simply couldn't be done, say playing games and sports, having a more diverse and balanced life. Living longer affords us to be educated and dive deeply into subjects, and obtain a deep understanding of nature and even our own nature. But we also sacrifice some of those very valuable things in the name of comfort. We (sometimes!) work crazy hours in meaningless jobs; we destroy the environment; we stay at home depressed and glued to addictive devices, addictive substances and compulsive behaviors[1]. Because we believe in silly equations like Comfort = Linearly better, or Money = Linearly better, and so on. This is why we need progress not only in technology but in wisdom too, so we can continually learn how to use our resources well (to genuine improve our lives), and make sure they're sustainable (and not collapse within a short time).
[1] Many of the improvements are surprisingly subtle, although I'm partial to peace and lack of violence: I think violence tends to create a state of constant fear that genuinely sucks (although we are well adapted at dealing with that too, and in some ways we live in more fear from TV and internet blasting bad news). Part of the "technique" of improving our lives comes from lowering the chance of getting robbed or assaulted, part comes from our psychological ability to handle whatever risk exists without sacrificing our lives to cowering in fear.
A fun illustration is that in older times we would adventure in the forest to hunt or from necessity, now we don't have to: instead, we go on hikes :) , with some people choosing to experience those same old ways voluntarily. We forego the comfort of our beds to go on adventures in sleeping bags. We are hobby gardeners and small scale farmers. It's not that is was by itself bad, it's that we can live experiences in a more controlled, selective and sustainable way, with lower risks of ending our lives from the natural risks.
I think understanding this subtle nature of life and experiences is important in attaining wisdom to live a good life. (and also important so that we make the best of our limited resources so we can help everyone have the best lives possible)
People may not like industrial society. It may even kill us all, looking at the gently escalating tensions between nuclear powers. But the fact is it has been far better than all the alternatives on the table. The grass is not greener over there.