In the post Degrowth: A Totalitarian Deception, I already demystified a concept underlying almost all Western democracies. Yet, I realized it is insufficient to present an argument only once. The destructive forces of our civilization, running on concepts of cultural Marxism under various banners, repeat their claims regardless of arguments ceaselessly, so it is my duty not to remain silent.

I recently came across a book, Degrowth, published in 2014. For any conscious reader, it should provide a conclusive argument against the degrowth philosophy, which is contrary to its intentions. Yet, reviews on Goodreads and elsewhere, for that matter, prove that the degrowth virus has already infected the majority of the population.

While the Introduction of the book is helpful since it describes how the degrowth pandemic started in 2072 in France and was pushed forward by mainly French social radicals, disguised communists of the French intellectual majority, the following paragraph reveals the truth:

Usually, degrowth is associated with the idea that smaller can be beautiful. Ecological economists

define degrowth as an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that will reduce

societies’ throughput of energy and raw materials (Schneider et al. 2010). However, our emphasis

here is on different, not only less. Degrowth signifies a society with a smaller metabolism, but more

importantly, a society with a metabolism which has a different structure and serves new functions.

Degrowth does not call for doing less of the same. The objective is not to make an elephant leaner,

but to turn an elephant into a snail. In a degrowth society everything will be different: different

activities, different forms and uses of energy, different relations, different gender roles, different

allocations of time between paid and non-paid work, different relations with the non-human world.

(G. D’Alisia, F. Demaria, G. Kallis, 2014)

First of all, economists who take degrowth as their maxim cannot be ecological if, by ecology, we understand, as we should, sustainability.

What is sustainable? It is not hard to find the most solid example: everything that survives the complex evolutionary change. The paradox is thus that sustainability cannot be proved apriori but only aposteriory. Yet, it is possible to derive from it that the energy needed to survive increased exponentially from the first living “creatures” 4 billion years ago. What threatens each species and each individual is that competition emerges with higher energy and a higher ability to reproduce and thrive.

The energy needed for operation limits the benefits of having more energy available. Yet, the consumption management issue arises after the energy needed is secured. No living creature starts with consumption reduction before it has the energy needed to manage consumption. An exemption exists to this rule: “ecological economists” and degrowth activists, in their heads only, to be sure. They live according to long-lasting evolutionary principles while pushing the rest of the world down the drain.

The clue lies in the above citation describing metabolism, bolded in the original text. They propagate an idea of a different metabolism, as metabolism would be a social construction. They propagate the idea that a living creature can perform its metabolism differently.

Let’s experiment. I will shut up for the rest of my life if you can change your metabolism, how you digest and breathe, how you transform carbs into sugars and sugars into energy, and so on. (Being silent is a higher threat for me than death!) Or perhaps you could skip the experiment and watch the movie Club Zero.

The perils of social constructivism (cultural Marxism) are revealed when authors plead not to make an elephant leaner but to turn it into a snail. This is precisely what Hitler aimed for. This is what Lysenko did (and failed) under Stalinism. This is a Frankensteinian nightmare. This goes so very much against natural laws that no known capital punishment is severe enough for terrorists propagating it.