Implementation Theory of Degrowth (1): Why Question the Premise That 'Growth Is Necessary'—The Starting Point for 'Redesigning' the Economy

Note:

• (The following series is a compilation of a series of dialogues with ChatGPT.
  For details of the dialogue, please refer to the link on the original site.)

Original site (PC viewing recommended):

• [System : 4] Capitalism and the limits of growth, design-model economy, the overall picture of a sustainable economy, etc.

Part 1: Why question the premise that 'growth is necessary'

— The starting point for 'redesigning' the economy

Introduction

'The economy must grow.'
We have accepted this statement far too naturally.

When the economy worsens, we are told the 'growth rate is low,'
when social anxiety rises, it is explained as 'not enough growth,'
and even when environmental destruction progresses, 'compatibility with growth' is spoken of as a premise.

However, if we stop and think for a moment,
why is growth 'necessary'?

Is it truly unavoidable, like a law of nature?
Or is it merely a premise that we ourselves have created?

This series begins with this question.

The limits of the Earth and the premises of the economy

Currently, we are facing multiple 'limits'.

• Climate change

• Loss of biodiversity

• Resource depletion

• Degradation of soil and water environments

These are all problems stemming from the 'finitude of the Earth'.

On the other hand, the basic design of the modern economy takes
'infinite growth' as an implicit premise.

Finite Earth × Infinite Growth
This combination itself already contains a strong tension.

Nevertheless,
much of the discussion proceeds as follows.

While these arguments are important, they rarely delve into
the fundamental premise itself—the question of 'Is growth necessary?'

Is growth 'necessary,' or was it 'designed that way'?

Let's try changing our perspective here.

If the economy is such that

• without growth, jobs are lost

• without growth, public finances collapse

• without growth, society becomes unstable

then why is that?

Could it be because it is
'designed so that it cannot function without growth'
?

This is an important point.

In many cases,
it is not that 'we aim for growth because growth is necessary,' but rather

a self-fulfilling prophecy may be occurring.

Do developed countries really 'lack' anything?

Let's take another calm look at reality.

At the very least, in developed countries,
is the 'total amount of wealth' truly insufficient?

• Food is in surplus

• The number of vacant houses is increasing

• There is sufficient technological and productive capacity

Even so,
poverty, anxiety, and inequality have not been resolved.

Isn't this
a problem of design, not a problem of quantity
?

In other words,

• it is not that wealth is insufficient,

• but that wealth is unevenly distributed,

• this uneven distribution is becoming fixed,

• and the rules are unchangeable

—this is a structural problem.

The economy is an 'artifact,' not a 'natural phenomenon'

Here, I will go a step further.

The economy is often treated
as if it were a 'natural phenomenon.'

• The market is neutral

• Prices are determined naturally

• Private property is inviolable

However, in reality,

• laws

• accounting standards

• monetary systems

• market rules

all of these are determined by humans.

In other words, the economy is
an extremely artificial system.

Nevertheless, for some reason, the economy alone has been treated as 'something that must not be touched' or 'something like a law of nature.'

Is democracy unable to intervene in the economy?

The result brought about by this premise is clear.

Democracy has become capable only of

• taxes

• redistribution

• subsidies

and other forms of
ex-post adjustments.

The rules of the economy itself—market design and capital rules—are almost never touched.

However, think about it.

• The military is under civilian control

• Both the police and the judiciary are under democratic control.

And yet,
is it really acceptable for the economy alone to be outside of that control?

Given the reality that the runaway economy is causing serious problems such as:

• the climate crisis,

• widening inequality,

• and the hollowing out of democracy,

would it not be more natural to consider it an 'object requiring civilian control'?

Themes covered in this series

In this series, we will take the following stance:

• We do not reject capitalism.

• We do not reject markets or competition.

• However, we do question the premise that they are 'natural and inviolable'.

And we aim to
reconceptualize the economy as a 'designable system'.

• Can we design an economy that does not rely on growth?

• Is an economy that incorporates external costs possible?

• Can democracy manage the economy?

• What can IT and AI change?

We will consider these not as matters of ideology, but as

problems of design and implementation.

Next Preview

In the next installment, we will take a step further and delve into the question:

We will explore this question in depth.

Is the "Invisible Hand" truly omnipotent?
Why have external costs been consistently ignored?
Where did that premise come from?

We will organize the intellectual scaffolding
needed to "question" the economy.

> Next Article:

▶︎ Related Series Structure

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (1): Why Question the Premise That "Growth Is Necessary"—The Starting Point for "Redesigning" the Economy --- This Article

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (2): Is the Economy a Natural Phenomenon or a Designed System?—Re-examining the Premise of the "Invisible Hand"

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (2-2): Re-examining the Driving Force of Interest—Why Did Growth Become a Premise?

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (3): Redefining the Economy as an Algorithm—From a "Discipline of Empirical Rules" to a "Designable System"

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (3-2): Is "Autopilot" for the Economy Possible?—Designing a Goal-Convergent Economy Through Transparent Algorithms

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (3-3): Implementation and Feasibility—Answering the Question, "Does It Really Work?"

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (3-4): Degrowth, Doughnut Economics, and "Design-Model Economies"—Bridging the Gap Between Ideology and Implementation

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (4): Can Democracy Design the Economy?—The Shift from "Ex-Post Adjustment" to "Ex-Ante Design"

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (4-2): Why Has the Economy Come to Seem "Inviolable"?—The "Forbidden Zones" Created by Power, Capital, and Ideology

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (5): Can Citizens Participate in Economic Design?—Beyond "Democracy That Only Votes"

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (6): Economic Systems Starting from Experiments—The Realistic Strategy of Sandboxes

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (6-2): Experiments Can Already Begin—Concrete Sandbox Examples of a Design-Model Economy

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (6-3): How Systems Work—How Coarse Weighting Changes the Economy

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (7): Can a Design-Based Economy Become an Academic Discipline?—The Approach of "Expanding" Economics

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (8): Money Is Not a Natural Object—Global Currency and the Dual Currency Concept

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (9): Start Small and Change the World—Strategies for Introducing a Design-Based Economy into Reality

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (10): The Choice to Redesign the Economy—Updating the Civilization's OS

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (10-2): Proposal

• Implementation Theory of Degrowth (10-3): Executive Summary

> Original Site (PC viewing recommended):

• [System: 4] Capitalism and the Limits of Growth, Design-Model Economy, Overview of a Sustainable Economy, etc.

> Top Page:

> Overall Top:

Finally...

▼ A Call for a "Quiet Revolution":