One cannot make up this up:
Researchers in ecological economics call for a different approach — degrowth3. Wealthy economies should abandon growth of gross domestic product (GDP) as a goal, scale down destructive and unnecessary forms of production to reduce energy and material use, and focus economic activity around securing human needs and well-being.
….
Balancing the national economy will require new macro-economic models that combine economic, financial, social and ecological variables. Models such as LowGrow SFC (developed by T.J. and P.A.V.), EUROGREEN and MEDEAS are already being used to project the impacts of degrowth policies, including redistributive taxes, universal public services and reductions in working time.
….
[We must end democracies –>] Nonetheless, political parties that have put forward degrowth ideas have received limited support in elections. That begs the question: where would the drive for degrowth policy come from?
Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help (nature.com)
Obviously, we must end democracy, as other enthusiasts have suggested. /satire
The first step, they say, is ironically, to increase funding to degrowth proponents! Yes, while everyone else must downsize, they must grow larger! Because Sciencetm! To make this work, we must develop a global degrowth industrial complex:
Research on degrowth and ecological economics needs more funding, to increase capacity to address necessary questions. And the agenda needs attention and debate in major economic, environmental and climate forums, such as the United Nations conferences.
Degrowth is a joke. If climate change is real, we need more resources – not less – to make big changes. Degrowth is advocating for shrinking economies.
Of course, we should be seeking greater efficiencies. But they want to end democracy, shrink economies, and put technocrats in charge and “redistribute wealth” – basically communism. That worked well. Let’s do it again!
