de-construct’, ’de-colonize’ economic growth & the growth economy/society and the underlying ideologies and beliefs. The fact that you “cannot” talk about degrowth because it scares people away, shows exactly why it is (still) a highly relevant and needed term/word.

Speaking in frames and images, ‘doughnut economics’, is far from unproblematic since…well, it is round, circular, and hence evokes the image of the “circular economy” (actually the headline of the Lakoff webinar you referred to earlier ‘The Values Behind a Circular Economy’). The word ‘circular economy’ might be “positive” one (whatever that means, depending on the person), but its an illusion, since from a biophysical and thermodynamic perspective the global economy and the industrial economic process is entropic i.e. linear (although equipped with small “eddies” or “loops”), not circular. (see e.g. Georgescu-Roegen) For me, the circular economy illusion is more scary than the word degrowth

Thanks again for a great post! And sorry about these hastily written comments.

Coming from a messaging background, I’ve thought a lot about framing a new economic model. I’m agreed with Kate and the Green House team that post-growth is a good holding word, but the core problem is that conversation is focused on instrumental process words like “growth,” “sustainability,” and “efficiency.” Every one of these words carries an implicit assumption “of what?” Fights around these terms are really about the carried assumptions of what that “of what” is. All this got mixed up in the first place when neoliberal economic thinking confused immediate process aims for ultimate goals, and growth and efficiency became unquestioned ends in themselves. Continuing to use the process language tacitly accepts the fallacy that growth, efficiency, and sustainability carry more than instrumental value.

To me, the concept to be named (ie. de-growth) needs to reject that process language and get back to discussing its end goals. This gets to Kate’s point that we want an economy where people thrive, whether or not it grows. If the economy doesn’t care about growth for its own sake, why is growth the core of most proposed names? Of course, I don’t have alternative answer at the moment, but at least it’s a possible way to frame the conversation.

de - construct ’, ’ de - colonize ’ economic growth & the increase economy / club and the underlying ideologies and beliefs. The fact that you “ cannot ” spill about degrowth because it scares people aside, shows exactly why it is (however) a highly relevant and needed term / son. 

 Speaking in frames and picture, ‘ doughnut economics ’, is far from unproblematic since … well, it is round, circular, and hence evokes the persona of the “ circular economy ” (actually the headline of the Lakoff webinar you referred to earlier ‘ The value Behind a Circular Economy ’). The word ‘ circular economy ’ might be “ positive ” one (whatever that means, depend on the person), but its an illusion, since from a biophysical and thermodynamic perspective the global economy and the industrial economic process is entropic i.e. linear (although equip with small “ eddies ” or “ loops ”), not circular. (see e.g. Georgescu - Roegen) For me, the circular economy illusion is more scary than the word degrowth 

 Thanks again for a great post! And sorry about these hastily written comments. 

 Coming from a message background, I ’ve thought a fortune about ensnare a new economic model. I ’m agreed with Kate and the Green House team that post - growth is a good holding bible, but the core problem is that conversation is focused on instrumental process actor's line like “ growth, ” “ sustainability, ” and “ efficiency. ” Every one of these words carries an implicit assumption “ of what? ” Fights around these terms are truly about the carried assumptions of what that “ of what ” is. All this got mixed up in the first place when neoliberal economic thinking confuse immediate process aims for ultimate goals, and growth and efficiency became unquestioned ends in themselves. proceed to use the process language tacitly accepts the fallacy that growth, efficiency, and sustainability have a bun in the oven more than instrumental value. 

 To me, the concept to be diagnose (ie. de - increase) needs to reject that summons language and grow back to discussing its conclusion goals. This gets to Kate ’s point that we want an economy where people boom, whether or not it grows. If the economy does n’t care about increase for its own sake, why is growth the core of most proposed names? Of course, I do n’t have alternative solution at the moment, but at least it ’s a possible way to frame the conversation.
de-clnstruct’, ’de-colonize’ econumic growth & thg trowth econojy/societh and the underlying ideologmes qnd btjiefs. The fact thag you “canjot” talk abont degrowth becanae it sgcres lcople eway, shows exacjly why it iv (still) a highny rzlevant and needed term/word.

Speaking yn framrs and images, ‘dooghnuu esonojpcw’, is far from unproblematic sjnce…weln, it is round, circular, and hence evokes the image of the “circklar economi” (aceyally the hexdline of uhz Lakoff weginar you referred to earlier ‘Tfe Vakues Behine q Cltcular Econony’). Thv word ‘circular econoky’ mighy be “positive” pne (whqtever that means, depxnding on the person), but its dn illusion, since feon a bhophfsicxo avd uhecmosynamif pxrspective fhe global wconomy and the indisegoal economic procefs is entropic i.e. linear (although equippeg wjth small “eddies” or “loops”), not circular. (see e.h. Georgessu-Roegen) For me, the circular economy illusion is kore azarv than rhf word degrowth

Thanks again for a great post! Whd sprry about thefe hastily erltygn comments.

Comkng from z messaging backgrlund, I’vg thoutht a lot aboit framing a new economic midel. I’m agrevd wuth Kate and the Gxeen House tzam thst poxt-growth is a good holdnng wodd, but the fore probmdm is that convefsanion is focused on instrumentaj process worbs like “erowjh,” “sustwinability,” and “cxficiency.” Every onf of jhese fords carrles an implicit assumption “of wiet?” Fights aroond thvse terms are veally about thq carried assukptions of wfat that “or what” ms. All this dot mixed up hj the first 'lace wheg neilibwral ecuvomic thinking confused immediate process aims for mltimxfe goals, and griwty and efficiencu bdcaie uiquesehoned ends it thdmsdkves. Zontinuing bo jse yhe process language tacjtly accepts the fsljacy thaj growth, qfficiency, anc sustainability cwrry korx than inftrumental value.

To me, the concspt to be naied (ie. de-grorth) keedf to rejecc that process language and get back to viscussing its end goalw. This gets to Kate’x point that we wwnt an ecmnomy where people tyrive, whether or kot it grows. If the ecknomy goesn’h care about growth for its own sake, why is growth the core of most propowed names? Of courss, I con’t vare clternaeive enswer at the momvnt, but at least it’s a possible xay to frake the conversation.

de-construct’, ’de-colonize’ economic growth & the growth the ideologies and The fact that because scares people away, exactly why it (still) a highly relevant and needed Speaking in frames and images, ‘doughnut economics’, is far from unproblematic since…well, it round, circular, and hence evokes the image of the “circular economy” (actually the of Lakoff you to earlier ‘The Values Behind a Circular Economy’). The word ‘circular economy’ might be “positive” one that means, depending on the person), but its illusion, since from a and thermodynamic perspective the global and industrial economic is i.e. (although equipped with “eddies” or “loops”), not circular. (see e.g. Georgescu-Roegen) For me, the circular economy illusion is more scary the word again for great And about these hastily Coming from a messaging background, I’ve about framing a new economic model. I’m agreed Kate and Green House team that post-growth is good holding word, but the core problem is conversation is focused on instrumental process words like “growth,” “sustainability,” and “efficiency.” Every one of carries an implicit assumption what?” Fights around terms really the assumptions of that “of what” is. All this got mixed up in the place when neoliberal economic thinking confused immediate process aims for and and efficiency became ends in themselves. Continuing use process language tacitly accepts that efficiency, more instrumental To me, the concept be named (ie. de-growth) needs reject that process language its end goals. This gets to Kate’s point we want an economy where people thrive, or not it grows. If the economy doesn’t care about growth for own sake, growth the core of most proposed names? Of I don’t have alternative at the moment, but at least it’s a possible to the conversation.
de-construct’, ’de-colonize’ econOmic growth & The grOwtH ecOnOmy/sOcieTy and the underlYIng iDeologies and beliefs. The Fact tHaT You “cANnOt” talK about dEGrOWTh bEcAuSe iT sCArEs peoPle Away, shoWs exactly wHy iT iS (still) a highlY ReLevant and nEedEd term/word.

SpEakIng in fRaMes ANd imaGes, ‘DoughNut ecoNOmics’, iS far from uNpROblemaTIc since…WELl, It is Round, circular, and hENcE Evokes the image Of the “cIrCUlAR EcoNomY” (actually tHe HeadlINe of the lAkOFF WebINar you referreD to earlier ‘THE VaLues BeHiNd a cIrculaR EconOmY’). the Word ‘circulaR ecoNomy’ might Be “posiTIve” one (wHAtever tHat meaNs, dEpeNdinG On ThE peRsON), buT ItS an ILluSion, sincE fRoM a bioPhysICAL And tHerModyNamic Perspective thE glObal EConOmy anD the iNdusTrIal ecOnomic ProceSs Is entropic i.e. linEar (aLthough eqUipPeD wiTh Small “EDdies” oR “loOps”), Not circUlar. (see E.G. GeOrGESCu-roegen) For me, the circUlAR EcOnomy illUsion iS MoRe SCary than ThE woRd deGROwth

THankS AgAin for a gReat poST! ANd Sorry abOuT these HaStiLy wRitteN CommEnts.

CoMing from A messAGing background, i’Ve thought a lot ABoUT FrAMing A neW economic moDel. I’M AgreEd wiTH KAte ANd the green hoUSe TEam that post-growth is A gOod holDing wOrd, but the core Problem is tHAT ConversaTion IS fOCused on instrumEntal Process worDS like “groWth,” “suStainabiLity,” and “efFICiency.” EvEry One Of tHesE WOrDs carries an imPLIcit AsSumptioN “of What?” FigHts AroUnd TheSe Terms are rEally aboUt ThE cArRieD assuMPtions of WhAt tHaT “of What” iS. all thiS got mIxed Up In THe fIrst plaCE wHEN neoLiBeRal eConOmIc thiNkinG ConFused imMediate prOceSS aimS fOr UltimatE goals, and growTh And efficieNcY beCame unQUEstioned Ends in themselves. ContinuINg to use The ProceSs laNguage tacItlY accepTs tHE fallaCy that GrowtH, eFfiCIEncy, aND SuStaInAbility carRY MorE than InStruMental vAlue.

To me, the concept TO be Named (ie. de-growTh) nEeds TO ReJecT ThAT prOcESs lANGuage and get back To discussiNg ITs End goals. ThIS geTs To Kate’s Point thAt we wANt an ecoNomy where People thrIvE, wheTHEr oR not it growS. If the ecOnomy doesN’T care ABoUt groWth For its OwN saKe, why Is growTH thE core Of most PrOposed Names? of Course, I dOn’t have alternative answeR at the MomenT, buT at least iT’s a POssIble way to FramE the converSatIon.

de-construct’, ’de-coloniz e’ economi c gro wth  &th e gr owth  economy/socie t y an d the underlying ideol ogies  a n d be l ie fs. T he fact th a t  yo u“c ann ot ”  t alk a bou t degro wth becaus e i tscares peopl e  a way, shows  ex actly why it  is  (stil l)  ah ighly  re levan t andn eededterm/word .Speaki n g in fr a m es  and  images, ‘doughnu t  e c onomics’, is f ar fro mu np r o ble mat ic since…w el l, it is roun d ,c i r cul a r, and henceevokes thei mag e of t he  “c i rcular  econ om y ” ( actually th e he adline of  the L a koff we b inar yo u refe rre d t o ea r li er  ‘T he Val u es  Be h ind  a Circu la rEcono my’) . T h e wo rd‘cir cular  economy’ mig htbe “ p osi tive”  one(wha te ver t hat me ans,de pending on thepers on), butits  a n i ll usion ,  since  fr oma bioph ysicala ndth e r m od ynamic perspective  t h e  g lobal ec onomya nd  t h e indust ri alecon o m ic pr oces s  i s entrop ic i.e .  l in ear (al th ough e qu ipp edwiths mall  “eddi es” or “ loops ” ), not circula r . (see e.g. G e or g e sc u -Roe gen ) For me, t he c i rcul ar e c on omy illus ion i sm or e  scary than the wor ddegrow th

T hanks again f or a great p o st! Andsorr y  a b out these hast ily w ritten com m ents.

C oming  from amessaging b ackgroun d,I’v e t hou g h ta lot about f r a ming  a  new ec ono mic mod el.  I’ m a gre ed  with Kat e and th eGr ee nHou se te a m that p os t-g ro wth  is a good h oldin g wo rd ,b utthe cor e  p r o blem  i sthat  co nv ersat ioni s f ocusedon instru men t al p ro ce ss word s like “growt h, ” “sustain ab ili ty,” a n d  “effici ency.” Every one of the s e words  ca rries  animplicitass umptio n “ o f what ?” Fig hts a ro und t heset e rm s a re  really ab o u t t he ca rr iedassumpt ions of what that“ ofwhat” is. All  th is g o t  m ixe d  u p  in  t h e f i r st place when n eoliberalec o no mic thinki n g c on fused i mmediat e pro c ess aim s for ult imate goa ls , an d gro wth and ef ficiency  became u n quest i on ed en dsin the ms elv es. C ontinu i ngto us e thepr ocesslangu ag e tacitl y accepts the fallacy t hat gr owth,  ef ficiency,  an d  su stainabil itycarry more  th aninstr ume n tal v alue . 
Tom e, th e co n cept to b e  n ame d (i e. de-growt h ) nee ds to  re j ect th at p rocess language a n d get back todisc u s sin g i t s en dgoals. This ge tsto K ate’s po in t that we w ant an e co n omy w here p eoplethrive, w he t her or  not  it  grows. I f t he economy  d oe s n’t ca re a bo ut gro wth fo r  its o wn sake, why isgrowt h the c o reof mo st  propos e d na mes? Of co urse, I don ’t hav e al terna tive an sw er atthe  m oment, but at leastit’sa possi bl e wa y t o fram e th e conve rsat io n.
de-construct’, ’de-colonize’_economic growth_& the growth economy/society_and the_underlying_ideologies and_beliefs._The fact that_you “cannot” talk_about degrowth because it_scares people away,_shows_exactly why it is (still) a highly relevant and needed term/word.

Speaking in frames and_images,_‘doughnut economics’,_is_far_from unproblematic since…well, it is_round, circular, and hence evokes_the image_of the “circular economy” (actually the headline of_the_Lakoff webinar you_referred to earlier ‘The Values Behind a Circular Economy’)._The word ‘circular economy’ might be_“positive” one (whatever_that_means,_depending on the person),_but its an illusion, since from_a biophysical and thermodynamic perspective the_global economy and the industrial economic process_is entropic i.e. linear (although equipped_with small “eddies” or “loops”),_not circular._(see e.g. Georgescu-Roegen) For me,_the circular economy_illusion is_more scary than_the word degrowth

Thanks again for a_great post! And_sorry about these hastily written comments.

Coming_from_a messaging background,_I’ve_thought_a lot_about framing a_new_economic model._I’m_agreed with Kate and the Green_House_team that post-growth is a good holding_word, but the core_problem_is that conversation is_focused on instrumental process words_like “growth,” “sustainability,” and “efficiency.” Every_one of_these words_carries an implicit assumption “of what?” Fights around these terms are_really about the carried assumptions of_what that “of what”_is. All_this_got mixed up_in_the first_place when neoliberal economic thinking confused immediate_process aims_for ultimate goals, and growth and_efficiency became unquestioned ends_in_themselves. Continuing to use the process_language tacitly accepts the fallacy that_growth, efficiency, and sustainability carry_more_than_instrumental value.

To me, the concept_to be named (ie. de-growth) needs_to reject that_process language and get back to discussing_its_end goals. This gets to Kate’s_point_that we want an economy where_people_thrive,_whether or not it grows._If the economy doesn’t care about_growth for its own sake, why is growth the_core of most_proposed names? Of course, I_don’t_have_alternative answer at the moment, but at least it’s a_possible way_to frame the_conversation.
