1.

Why must we change our paradigm of growth and consumption to that of "de-
development"?
According to Jason Hickel " We must end poverty by changing the rules of the Global
Economy". There are countries that are still experiencing poverty and trying to catch up,
but according to Hickel's idea, we must change the course of economic development by,
instead of poor countries to 'catch up' with the rich ones, we should be getting the rich
countries to 'catch down'. We should think of ways for the rich countries to catch down
with the poor countries to make more appropriate levels of development. We should look
at societies where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and
consumption.
2. Why are the terms de-development, de-growth, and zero growth seemingly
unacceptable to the usual framework of human progress?
De-development, de-growth, and zero growth seemingly unacceptable because it only
means to stop overconsumption and start limiting the use of resources in nature and water
to avoid scarcity of resources in our planet. This kind of framework requires a high level
of development and continuous high level of progress which is the opposite of the terms
“de-development” and "de-growth" since these terms refer to catching down with the
development of rich countries instead of the poor countries to catch up with the rich ones.
The “de-development” aims for rich countries to have appropriate levels of development.
The term “zero growth” refers to stop of development, progress and learning which is also
unacceptable since it opposes the objective of the usual framework of human progress.
The usual framework doesn’t consider the consequences of the high level of development
such as the overconsumption which led us to exceed the bio-capacity of our planet. The
over consumption that continues to happen is putting our society, nature and the world in
a huge risk.
3. How have we been enframed by the notion of growth?
By how much money spent and how many global hectares is enough for us individually. It
can also be viewed as economic growth, expressed as GDP per capita; a measure of a
country's economic output that accounts for its number of people. This is a good
measurement of a country's standard of living. It tells you how prosperous a country feels
to each of its citizens. This growth doesn't include all the countries globally; in fact, there
is a rising trend for global inequality, i.e., the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming
poorer. Humans can be viewed as an invasive species because we have flourished so
much that we are damaging our environment. The capacity of our environment to sustain
us humans is approaching its limit.
4. How do we improve our lives and yet reduce consumption?
We would be able to improve our lives and yet reduce consumption by being able to
determine our needs, and not focusing so much towards our wants, and finding the needs
that would last long in our hands; purchasing quality products would also be of help when
we need to reduce our consumption. We need to redefine our lifestyle for us to be able to
reduce consumption as it may only require some behavioral changes and modifications in
a person's way of living. Improving our lives and reducing consumption would always
depend on us no matter what we are humans — we are the only ones who get to choose
what kind of life do we want to exemplify.
5. What are the similarities and differences between Heidegger's The Question
Concerning Technology and Hickel's article?
Both are humanist in view and supports the environment and are concerned with the
destructive nature of technology and its policy heidegger is concerned with how are we in
touch with ourselves and the world we live in. Meanwhile, hickel has economic improve
human life standards and the natural world.