> The man spent his life in metrics indicating that trend, which made him pessimistic. Well then he was looking at the wrong metrics. Because during that time

> The man spent his life in metrics indicating that trend, which made him pessimistic. Well then he was looking at the wrong metrics. Because during that time we observed the largest expansion of human prosperity. It seems that he deliberately wants to pick these metrics to fit his Anti-Humanist agenda. > You could have used the same argument about slavery not so long ago. There are many ways this is a different case. But I don't want to get into a side argument. > Yes. And now that we've done it this way, we know the price of it. We have the feedback and the scientific knowledge to understand the system we live in, the consequences of exponential growth in a finite system and what our needs are as a specie. Yes, and what we have learned is that people who don't have energy are very unhappy and die young. So when we think about the future of the species we should not simply think of some abstract species that we need to save globally, rather we should realize the real world constraints such as the benefits of the current system provides for all humans. So if your solution means depriving lots of people of energy, then first of all that's just cruel. Second it is politically infeasible. Third, reducing human population is a terrible way of making the future better. I think there are lots solutions out there but HIS point is that he does not believe in these solution because he believes the ONLY way we can solve the problem is by restricting consumption. That is the same 'finite resources' zero sum thinking that has plagued the world for such a long time.