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

Note:

• (The following series is a summary 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 to Growth, Design Model Economy, Overview of a Sustainable Economy, etc.

Previous article:

Part 3-3: Implementation and Feasibility—Answering the Question, 'Will It Really Work?'

In the discussion so far,

• reconceptualizing the economy as an algorithm

• setting target states and having them automatically converge

• designing an economic structure that does not assume growth

are the concepts I have presented.

On the other hand, it is natural that many who have read this far would have the following questions:

This time, we will face this "implementation and feasibility" issue head-on.

1. The Biggest Misconception: "Everything Must Be Perfected All at Once"

First, I would like to clear up a common misconception.

That is,

That is the understanding.

To start with the conclusion, that is incorrect.

A design-model economy differs from conventional institutional design in that it:

• does not demand perfect precision from the start

• is designed on the premise of an incomplete state

• assumes it will become smarter in stages

is how it differs from conventional institutional design.

This is a concept similar to 'beta testing' in software development.

2. Automatic adjustment does not increase 'on-site operations'

The next most common concern is:

That is the point.

Here, too, what is important is who is the subject of the adjustment.

In a design-model economy, the structure is as follows:

• individual companies and citizens do not need to change their decisions every time

• adjustments are provided as 'environmental conditions'

• the front lines act freely under those conditions

is the structure it takes.

For example,

• When carbon emissions approach the limit,

• energy-related coefficients change automatically,

• and high-emission behaviors become 'slightly less advantageous'

that is all.

What companies and citizens do remains the same as before.

that is all there is to it.

3. Prior application and prior calculation can be made unnecessary

As a practical concern,

Some might ask this.

However, design ingenuity can be applied here as well.

• By not performing precise evaluations for individual cases,

• using average coefficients for each activity category,

• and performing statistical corrections later,

by adopting such a method,

• prior procedures will not increase,

• evaluation accuracy can be gradually improved,

• and fraud or extreme discrepancies can be handled through post-processing.

This is how it will take shape.

It is the same as how
tax systems and insurance schemes operate on 'estimates' rather than perfect individual optimization.

4. Why we can start even without complete data

Another major concern is the issue of data.

The answer to this is also clear.

Yes, it can work.

The reason is simple:

• Perfect accuracy doesn't exist from the start anyway

• Current GDP and statistics also operate on estimates

• What matters is 'direction' and 'feedback'

That is why.

In a design-model economy, we can proceed with a 'focused improvement' approach where we:

• Start with rough indicators

• Identify where problems arise

• Increase accuracy only in those areas

This is how we can proceed.

5. Realistic steps for phased implementation

Here, I will briefly organize the practical implementation steps.

Step 1: Single Metric, Single Domain

• Start with agreed-upon metrics, such as carbon emissions

• Limit the scope of impact as well

Step 2: Pilot Introduction of Automatic Adjustments

• Link tax rates or subsidy rates in small increments

• Observe the impact on the market

Step 3: Integration of Multiple Metrics

• Gradually add social and environmental indicators

• Make the weighting public and open to discussion

Step 4: Citizen-Participatory Adjustments

• Democratically update target values and priorities

• The model itself learns

What is important is that it is 'reversible' at any stage.

6. Proceeding with the Premise That 'You Won't Know Until You Try It'

Conventional institutional design has been bound by the premise of

as a requirement.

However, in today's complex modern society,

is.

The design-model economy shifts its perspective here.

• Learning while operating

• Designing with the premise of failure

• Building the possibility of correction into the system itself

This is not irresponsible, but rather
the most realistic attitude toward uncertainty.

7. Feasibility is not about being 'perfect'

Finally, let's summarize the main points of this section.

The feasibility of a design-model economy does not depend on:

• perfect precision

• complete data

• immediate consensus from everyone

.

What it depends on is:

• being able to start small

• being able to make corrections along the way

• being transparent

• being able to update democratically

is.

This is, in fact, a way of thinking that we
have already become accustomed to through software and the internet.

Next Episode Preview

In the next installment (Part 3-4),

• degrowth theory

• doughnut economics

• green growth

and the relationship of this concept will be organized, and

will be clearly defined.

> Next article:

▶︎ Related Series Structure

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

• 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 Power 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

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

• Theory of Implementing Degrowth (3-4): Degrowth, Doughnut Economics, and the 'Design-Model Economy'—Bridging the Gap from Ideology to Implementation

• Theory of Implementing Degrowth (4): Can Democracy Design the Economy?—Shifting from 'Ex-Post Adjustment' to 'Ex-Ante Design'

• Theory of Implementing Degrowth (4-2): Why Has the Economy Come to Seem 'Inviolable'?—The 'Untouchable Domain' Created by Power, Capital, and Ideology

• Theory of Implementing Degrowth (5): Can Citizens Participate in Economic Design?—Beyond 'Voting-Only Democracy'

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Theory of Implementing Degrowth (10): The Choice to Redesign the Economy—Toward an OS Update for Civilization

• Degrowth Implementation Theory (10-2): Proposal

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

> Original Site (PC viewing recommended):

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

> Previous Page:

> Top Page:

> Overall Top:

Finally...

▼ A Call for a 'Quiet Revolution':