3 ms·
The authors summarise their disagreement with your 1 in TFA. Despite frequent assertions starting in the 1970s of fundamental “limits to growth,” there is stil
by stevetrewick 11y ago
The authors summarise their disagreement with your 1 in TFA.
Despite frequent assertions starting in the 1970s of fundamental “limits to growth,” there is still remarkably little evidence that human population and economic expansion will outstrip the capacity to grow food or procure critical material resources in the foreseeable future.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoSo the suggestion is that because it hasn't been a problem for us already it won't be a problem in the foreseeable future? We can have an economy based on abundance rather than scarcity, but that's not going to be achieved overnight, the priority for now is to slow down the damage. To give an example, look at the problem of overfishing. Taking the attitude of the authors you could argue it's not causing us problems in the foreseeable future, but the longer we leave it the worse it gets, and our depletion of fish populations is directly linked to our consumption and growing our economy without addressing this problem is going to cause problems with decreasing the variety of life found in rivers, lakes, seas and oceans.