I think you’re missing my point now. Maybe the headphone example is weak, but it illustrates the point. Abundance is not necessarily abundance of wealth. Im arguing that reducing general production and increasing wealth are compatible. Making the distribution of wealth depend on abundant production, independently of quality, only overworks people and pollute the world.
Legitimizing degrowth exterminates those unable to afford resistance to oligarchy.
This seems too general. Defending degrowth may do that if its done in the specific way you have described before, but not generally.
Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence, not the other way around.
What you seem to be criticizing is that “other way around” thesis.
I think you’re missing my point now. Maybe the headphone example is weak, but it illustrates the point. Abundance is not necessarily abundance of wealth. Im arguing that reducing general production and increasing wealth are compatible. Making the distribution of wealth depend on abundant production, independently of quality, only overworks people and pollute the world.
This seems too general. Defending degrowth may do that if its done in the specific way you have described before, but not generally. Resistance to oligarchy and general improvements to quality of life could have degrowth as a consequence, not the other way around. What you seem to be criticizing is that “other way around” thesis.