Participation by side
0 votes · 6 arguments · 0 takes
Equal participation on both sides
Be the first to make your case on camera — 60 seconds, your best argument.
Record a 60-second video making your strongest argument. Others vote and respond.
Declare a side and become findable. When someone opens a matching seat, you hear about it first.
Pick your side
Schedule a round for a later date, or open a video room. Confirm an opponent and the format before starting. Signing in is required.
Degrowth is not poverty — it is redesigning economies around wellbeing, shorter working weeks, and sufficiency rather than accumulation. Scandinavian countries demonstrate high quality of life with substantially lower material throughput than the US. The model exists; what's missing is the political will to pursue it.
The empirical record is clear: GDP growth and carbon emissions are historically coupled, and no rich country has achieved the absolute decoupling the climate requires at the speed required. Relative decoupling — lower emissions per unit of GDP — is real but insufficient. The physics of the carbon budget does not care about relative improvements.
The abundance agenda assumes future technology will solve problems already here. Degrowth addresses them now without betting civilization on breakthroughs that may not arrive in time. Carbon capture at scale, fusion power, and direct air removal are not proven technologies — they are research projects that may not deliver.
The clean-energy transition requires massive material throughput: solar panels, wind turbines, grid-scale batteries, EVs, and transmission infrastructure. Only growth-funded investment can deploy these at climate-relevant scale. Degrowth defunds the very industrial capacity needed to decarbonize.
No government has ever won a mandate for deliberately making its population poorer. The first country to seriously implement degrowth hands economic and political dominance to rivals who won't. The lesson of the 20th century is that geopolitical power follows economic dynamism, not restraint.
Degrowth in rich countries exports misery to poor ones. A contracting global economy cuts off development pathways that lifted billions from poverty and denies the same to billions more. Telling the global poor they cannot aspire to the material living standards of the global rich — in the name of the planet the rich already damaged — is not environmentalism; it is a form of immiseration.
Interested in debating this topic live? Tell us how you want to get involved — we reach out to every submission.
