Genau, wenn sich das Wachstum vom Ressourcen Verbrauch entkoppeln liesse, nennt man das “absolute decoupling”, sprich Wachstum steigt, aber Ressourcenverbrauch sinkt. Das ist aber ziemlich sicher unmöglich. Dann gibt es noch das “relative decoupling”, was bedeutet dass der Ressourcenverbrauch weniger stark ansteigt als das Wirtschaftswachstum. Das bringt aber nichts, weil es im best-case die Klimakatastrophe nur verzögert.

Es gibt keine Hinweise darauf dass absolute decoupling möglich ist. Neoliberale oder “Grün(liberal)e” denken aber dass wir das irgendwie schaffen, und nennen es dann “Green Growth”. Das ist aber bullshit. Aus deren Sicht lügen sie damit nicht, sie glauben den Scheiss wirklich. Und irgendwelche Tech-Bros versichern ihnen auch immer wieder dass wir das schaffen mit “AI” und “Innovation”. Die Annahme basiert aber komplett auf Vibes und Hoffnung, und nicht auf Fakten.

Das traurigen an der ganzen Sache ist, dass du eigentlich keine Partei wählen kannst die das Problem im Kern angehen will, und versuchen will eine Wirtschaft zu schaffen die ohne unlimitiertes Wachstum auskommen kann. Das imperativ ist als gegeben akzeptiert. In der Schweiz sind z.B. die “Jungen Grünen” die einzigen, welche das Thema Teil ihres Programms macht. Bei den letzten Wahlen erreichten sie 0 Sitze im Nationalrat.

Unsere Wirtschaft baut auf dem Wachstumsimperativ auf. Ohne dieses funktioniert die Kapitalakkumulation bei den Milliardären nicht mehr so gut. Auch unsere Pensionskassen sind darauf ausgelegt dass die Wirtschaft ständig wächst. Das ist genau so dumm wie du denkst. Ich kann “Less is more” von Jason Hickel empfehlen. Gute, leicht verdaubare Lektüre zu dem Thema. Und hilft dir dabei die FDP noch mehr zu hassen als du wahrscheinlich schon tust :)

Most email providers will automatically put emails coming from .xyz to spam. I’d advise against using any “new TLDs”, if you can. But if you must, avoid those that are frequently used for spamming. A lot of spam detectors will already score your emails as suspicious just for the TLD.

See for example, https://github.com/apache/spamassassin/blob/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/pds/20_ntld.cf

Sorry, I missed that this thread started on the topic of ebooks. To be honest, I don’t fully understand the connection you are making to the tragedy of the commons when it comes to DRM. I think I understand what you mean, if you are arguing on top of DRM, but DRM is itself already a tool of enclosure. So the problem is not really consumer choice, but rather that DRM is allowed in its current form. But I admit that this is a different discussion, I guess in the end we are talking about the same and I agree with you. I think the self organizing part here would be for authors to publish independently, and for people to support independent publishing. But as you implied, that market is already captured to a point where people don’t even know about independent publishers/markets. I wouldn’t look at that as a tragedy of the commons, where people “selfishly” choose DRM and degrade the underlying resource, rather they are simply consumers of an almost fully enclosed resource.

Glad you find it interesting enough to start reading. The book doesn’t necessarily “propose self organizing”, although that may be a conclusion one can draw. Rather it showcases different case studies where common pool resources have degraded, and others where they have flourished, and tries to compare the different situations through a few parameters. What I took from it is, that it is pretty safe to say that neither privatization, nor central planning are good “solutions” when it comes to common pool resources, also that it seems important to have some form of rule monitoring and enforcement where actors directly affected by rule-breaking are part of the monitoring. But I should probably read through my highlights again some time, to freshen up my memory :)

Really appreciated your insight.

I saw your comment 3 months late 😄 In the blog post I actually mention the tragedy of the commons. The problem with the theory is that it is only applicable in fixed empirical settings. For this reason, I think it is quite dangerous to apply this theory generally. It is actually a key ingredient in neoliberal economics, where it is argued that privatization of commons is necessary, because they are tragic. I had to unlearn this notion myself. I recommend the book ‘Governing the Commons’ by Elinor Ostrom on the topic, it’s a collection of case studies which shows that commons are only tragic under certain preconditions.

I mostly agree with your comment. And you are absolutely not ‘victim-blaming’. I think some might mistake your stance with a ‘vote with your wallet’ sentiment, but I interpret your comment about ‘fighting back’ as more than that.

Obviously, it is better to seek out the better options as a consumer, but that is not enough. People are not stupid for not seeking out alternatives, when the game is rigged against them in the first place. Fighting back also means trying to unrig the game. How one is supposed to achieve that is a question that I don’t have a satisfying answer for. I for myself, started by educating myself, by becoming more vocal about the defects of the status quo, and by advocating for change. It’s not a lot, but it can reach into your circle of friends. I attempted to reach a bit further with this blog post, even though it might just reach people that don’t need any convincing.

In the spirit of trying to make a difference, what are some of the DRM-free options? Let’s point people directly to better alternatives :)

I know of libro.fm for audiobooks.