3 ms·

I think it was in Bill McKibben's book "Eaarth" that I was surprised to learn that back in the 1970's, after the "Limits of Growth" was published, polls showed

by gdubs 8y ago

I think it was in Bill McKibben's book "Eaarth" that I was surprised to learn that back in the 1970's, after the "Limits of Growth" was published, polls showed that people were generally OK with moving towards an economic system that prioritized sustainability over growth. (Unthinkable in today's political climate.) In our current system, growth == prosperity, generally. But, if you believe Climate Science – then, well, this model is unsustainable. It needs tweaks at minimum (carbon tax, etc), and a total reimagining at best (e.g., Star Trek, The Next Generation.) That said, I find Stewart Brand's argument compelling that a collapsing population can spell environmental disaster, because in a strained economy, protecting the environment is the last thing on people's minds. They will burn the cheapest, most accessible sources of energy available. But perhaps the real story is income inequality. The working class is told the economy most keep growing for their benefit – yet, since the 1970s, wages have been relatively flat. America, in particular, has seen enormous growth over the past half-century (even if it has slowed in recent decades) – yet that money has concentrated itself into a very small number of pockets.

whatshisface 8y ago
Climate science? That doesn't limit growth. We'll cook the earth by continuing our same rate of emissions without adding a single person, and if we switch to something like solar we can have as many people as we want without any climate change.
Animats 8y ago
In our current system, growth == prosperity, generally. Read Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", which everyone interested in serious money has already read. One of his points is that prosperity for the little guy comes almost entirely from growth. In the absence of growth, money tends to flow toward those who already have it, in the form of rents. ("Rent", in the economic sense, includes any passive asset which generates revenue.)

by gdubs 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago

Climate science? That doesn't limit growth. We'll cook the earth by continuing our same rate of emissions without adding a single person, and if we switch to something like solar we can have as many people as we want without any climate change.

Animats 8y ago

In our current system, growth == prosperity, generally. Read Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", which everyone interested in serious money has already read. One of his points is that prosperity for the little guy comes almost entirely from growth. In the absence of growth, money tends to flow toward those who already have it, in the form of rents. ("Rent", in the economic sense, includes any passive asset which generates revenue.)