I just finished this book. I think if there was any reasonable way to switch course to Hickel's vision of degrowth then it would be sort of good. Most people would have to become mustachian, live on a universal basic income, and do some part time work as they find it to pay for "extra' things like vacationing. That all sounds great to us on these forums I'm sure, but I'm not convinced the rest of the developed world will agree. Some especially driven people would still have to do highly specialized things like surgery and things that require ownership of a lot of equipment like manufacturing or farming.
Hickel makes a lot of mistakes in his analysis in my opinion. First, the violent history of capitalism as he calls it, is not relevant to whatever systems of economic organization we are operating with today and in the future. There is no such thing as a pure capitalist economy, it only exists on a spectrum, and we don't need to dismantle every activity that could result in a profit for the participants. Engaging in business is not a zero-sum game as he implies. Synergy is possible, and both parties can come out ahead without automatically inducing externalities to a negative effect.
I much prefer the viewpoint of Enlightenment Now, although I think they are suggesting the same things in the most important cases. These are that investing in social services and redistributing wealth downward improves people's lives on average. Carbon emissions must be cut, and we have to recapture a lot of carbon that is already in the atmosphere to avoid a severe downturn in both human and ecological conditions. Pinker thinks we can do this by implementing more advanced nuclear generators and expanding solar/wind, and I noted that Hickel's rebuttal of nuclear was about 2 sentences long. Hickel believes it can only be done through degrowth.
Pinker suggests we implement policies based on the available evidence. Hickel suggests the way is animism. I just don't think animism is going to be a useful guide if we want optimal results.
