this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
755 points (94.8% liked)

Science Memes

16062 readers
790 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Auth@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (6 children)

How did they calculate that? I don't believe it.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Auth@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ah hes a degrowther, makes sense. I read through his paper and I really don't think its realistic or thought provoking. It lacks humanity and applies a utilitarian solution. Its the same as saying we have x humans producing co2 lets reduce the number of humans but instead of humans its goods he deems to be unnecessary.

His entire premise is based on what he thinks a person needs to live a good life. But lifes just not that simple and people all around the world NEED different things this type of strict partitioning fails when applied to the entire world. Part of what makes our current system work is that its dynamic, people create goods they want and those who also want those goods buy them.

[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

No, his argument is that the average human needs this standard. also, it is a model, it is by definition simplified.

Besides, what is the alternative? First world countries living like they own the place, third world countries starving, and we're all getting killed in the climate war of 2040?

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

No, his argument is that the average human needs this standard. also, it is a model, it is by definition simplified.

His argument is the average hmuan needs this standard.. so we can cut "unnecessary production" and it will be fine. I'm arguing that he cant label things unnecessary because hes found a standard wealth level he thinks is good enough. It wont work as an approach because humans require a diverse range of inputs to live happy lives and that requires a diverse and dynamic production economy.

[–] astutemural@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What on Earth are you on about?

Quoting from the study:

"It is important to understand that the DLS represents a minimum floor for decent living. It does not represent a an aspirational standard and certainly does not represent a ceiling. However, it is also a level of welfare not currently achieved by the vast majority of people. A new paper by Hoffman et al finds that 96.5 percent of people in low- and middle-income countries are deprived of at least one DLS dimension...we can conclude that 6.4 billion people, more than 80% of the world's population, are deprived of DLS."

The authors are not suggesting that everyone be forced on DLS at gunpoint. They are suggesting an absolute bare minimum standard that the overwhelming majority of people on Earth do not yet even have.

How the hell do you get from that to some sort of paranoid fantasy where everyone gets exactly the same thing?

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

Uh I disagree. The author is suggesting we could cut 70% of the worlds industry because he thinks that represents a good enough standard of living. If he was suggesting that everyone be brought up to the minimum standard then he wouldnt be suggesting large scale degrowth.

Which paper are you getting this from?

load more comments (4 replies)