Is NoGrowth-ism possible?

[Quintessence]

I'd suggest rather we have a mess due to people of limited vision and little concern for the long term viability of the species. Sort of an opposite version of your stance, they would ruin us for short term gain, you would ruin us for the sake of a doomed planet.

If humans were really concerned about the long term viability of humanity, we would be creating laws that limit birth rates to get human numbers down. We'd have laws that limit affluence and use of technology to keep things more sustainable. In short, we'd shift to a negative growth scenario for a while so we could get things to a level where we could have a no-growth (sustainable) scenario.

Besides, the planet isn't doomed. That's nonsense talk. By the time the planet is actually doomed due to the expansion of the sun, humans will be long gone one way or another.... either by extinction or by evolution. Nothing lasts forever. I'm just not a fan of the geological legacy of the human species being mass genocide. Seriously not cool, man.

Also, desire for your people to continue on isn't anthropcentrism, it is survival. That is life, that is nature. Living things fight to live on.

Humanity's behavior has gone well past mere survival, though. It has systematically increased its flourishing well beyond what is necessary for survival. It has accomplished this at the expense of other persons. Are you familiar with various philosophies in environmental ethics? Say, deep ecology?

Maybe take a look at that, if you haven't. Some of your other comments suggest to me that you are making a straw person of my outlook. Bottom line is that I am very, very not okay with humans being the cause of a sixth mass extinction event on this planet. Doubly so if the rationalization for that is selfish anthropocentrism (which it usually is). Human survival and flourishing does not require planetary genocide.

The Deep Ecology Platform
1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth, intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.
Foundation For Deep Ecology | The Deep Ecology Platform
​

This sort of environmental ethic would support the notion of a no-growth economy. And by no-growth, we really mean more of a reciprocated give-and-take that doesn't involve stampeding all over the vital needs of other persons.

Ah yes, God forbid we go to Mars and turn it into a desolate, barren wasteland.

Do tell, what are the ethical concerns involved in gathering resources from lifeless rocks?

Remember that you're talking to an animist who is a polytheistic pantheist. "Lifeless rocks" do not lack value or spirit to me like they apparently do for you. They are already ethical subjects by default for someone like me. Like the Native Americans of my country, I see the "inanimate" land itself as sacred. There is no reason for me not to extend that same courtesy to other worlds. This does not mean humans cannot take from the sacred, but there is a great deal more consideration than there would be for someone who is not an animist. Again, these issues are treated at length via the branch of philosophy called environmental ethics. It's also addressed in various religious teachings, especially those of nature-based religions like mine.

 

[icehorse]

Then you're calling for decline?

What I'm calling for is an upper limit. Variations under that limit are all fair game. So for example we might say that the world's GDP cannot exceed 10 trillion (a number I just made up).

 

[Mister Emu]

Besides, the planet isn't doomed. That's nonsense talk

Having an inevitable fate is exactly what being doomed means. The expansion of the Sun is only the upper bound, there are thousands of ways the planet could die that have nothing to do with human intervention.

Interplanetary and eventually interstellar colonization are imperative, and need to be done while we can be sure that the infrastructure and resources are available. That is now.

I'm just not a fan of the geological legacy of the human species being mass genocide.

Genocide is targeted. I'd rather our legacy be that of being the ones who saved life on Earth, maybe life at all, in perpetuity.

Humanity's behavior has gone well past mere survival, though.

No, because of our intelligence we can see past one generation, or a hundred. We can envision the cosmic timescale, so our survival must consider it too. We cannot afford to be short-sighted. We get only one chance at conquering existence.

We will not have achieved survival until we are no longer shackled by the restraints of the physical universe.

5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population.

This is the first statement I've disagreed with. Human flourishing is dependent on ever increasing specialisation and that only happens with population expansion.

Remember that you're talking to an animist who is a polytheistic pantheist.

Remember that you aren't. Alot of what we do to the Earth pains me because we are damaging viable life systems, and we are doing it to no lasting gain. It infuriates me.

I do care deeply for our environment, but I don't have a concern for extra planetary objects that don't have an environment, that don't have life systems. As I said, we can't make Mars any more desolate, any more of a wasteland, or any more lifeless than it already is. We grind rocks to make our cement and asphalt, what difference would there be in mining an asteroid?

And what about terraforming? If we gave Mars an environment, and brought life to it, would that bother you the same as strip mining it?

 

[Quintessence]

So here's the thing on my end, Mister Emu. Humans have already caused a sixth mass extinction event on this planet and have thus already failed at saving life on earth. Fancy dreams about space travel to save some of what is left because we pooped all over our own planet does not make it all better to me. It sounds to me like escapism instead of taking responsibility for what we have done. You seem okay with doing lasting if not permanent damage to this planet for lasting gain. I am not, in part because there is no such thing as "lasting gain." Like the human fantasy for immortality, it is irresponsible escapism to me. As far as I'm aware, matter and energy are not created or destroyed; there is only transformation. Unidirectional transformation is not possible, which is why dynamic equilibria models like no-growth strike me as far more sensible and in line with the laws of the universe.

This is the first statement I've disagreed with. Human flourishing is dependent on ever increasing specialisation and that only happens with population expansion.

It doesn't, though. Specialization happened historically because of technologies that allowed humans to establish agriculture. Fewer people needed to engage in basic subsistence activities, so they could then do other things. We don't need numbers for that. Certainly not the inflated numbers we have now, anyway. This is doubly the case when we consider things like robotics, mass production, and computing technologies. Improvements to educational opportunities would help specialization way more than continuing excessive breeding. Humans really do not need to be fruitful and multiply.

And what about terraforming? If we gave Mars an environment, and brought life to it, would that bother you the same as strip mining it?

I don't know. It's not something I support one way or another. If others want to do that because it is in accord with their values, so be it. I'm of the mind that humans need to stop with the escapism and take responsibility for what they have done to this planet first. If humans can prove they are responsible with this planet, I would be more open to thinking about things like this. As it stands, my people have terrible to nonexistent environmental ethics. Somehow, we figure treating corporations as persons make sense, but can't manage to treat our motherland as a person. I don't understand that at all.