4 ms·

Economic growth is not required for the survival of humanity. Economic growth is just something that wealthy people want so that the can keep or increase their

by rc_kas 7y ago

Economic growth is not required for the survival of humanity. Economic growth is just something that wealthy people want so that the can keep or increase their wealth. Again, wealth itself not being vital to the survival of humanity (and many species of animals).

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Not many people care about "survival of humanity" in the abstract. What we all care about is not suffering, not dying, and not seeing others suffer and die. And then other things on the Maslov's pyramid. Economic growth is absolutely necessary to achieve that; the default, natural state of humanity is pain and death.
- abyssin 7y ago
  I think the abstraction of humanity as a group of which every human being is part of is something that many people understand. People care about the messages they hear, and most of them still hear a message that says there's no real issue and it's possible to keep living the way they live, and it's possible for everyone to keep living the way they live. Many people would be okay if the message was: we are all going to have to change the way we live, including the rich.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    That's fair. I do too subscribe to the abstraction of humanity as a group. I guess what I'm saying is that even with climate change, survival of humanity is not at stake. We're unlikely to collapse the climate to the point where no humans can survive anywhere on the planet. What's under threat is survival of our technological civilization, of our ways of life, of our grandchildren. The danger is that a lot of people will suffer greatly and die prematurely, and that the future will only contain more suffering.
stale2002 7y ago
"economic growth" just means that we produce more goods and services that people desire, for cheaper. It it borderline tautological to say that economic growth is "good". I am not sure how someone can argue against a concept that is almost by definition positive.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > I am not sure how someone can argue against a concept that is almost by definition positive. People argue against the "more goods" part, on the basis that we have way more stuff than we know what to do with anyway. They're sort of right, but it's throwing baby out with the bathwater. Economic growth also encompasses doing same stuff better, and being more efficient with resource use. From what I've seen, the motivation behind criticism is usually twofold: criticizing greed, and worrying that ever-increasing use will exhaust available resources.

by rc_kas 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Not many people care about "survival of humanity" in the abstract. What we all care about is not suffering, not dying, and not seeing others suffer and die. And then other things on the Maslov's pyramid. Economic growth is absolutely necessary to achieve that; the default, natural state of humanity is pain and death.

abyssin 7y ago
I think the abstraction of humanity as a group of which every human being is part of is something that many people understand. People care about the messages they hear, and most of them still hear a message that says there's no real issue and it's possible to keep living the way they live, and it's possible for everyone to keep living the way they live. Many people would be okay if the message was: we are all going to have to change the way we live, including the rich.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  That's fair. I do too subscribe to the abstraction of humanity as a group. I guess what I'm saying is that even with climate change, survival of humanity is not at stake. We're unlikely to collapse the climate to the point where no humans can survive anywhere on the planet. What's under threat is survival of our technological civilization, of our ways of life, of our grandchildren. The danger is that a lot of people will suffer greatly and die prematurely, and that the future will only contain more suffering.

stale2002 7y ago

"economic growth" just means that we produce more goods and services that people desire, for cheaper. It it borderline tautological to say that economic growth is "good". I am not sure how someone can argue against a concept that is almost by definition positive.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> I am not sure how someone can argue against a concept that is almost by definition positive. People argue against the "more goods" part, on the basis that we have way more stuff than we know what to do with anyway. They're sort of right, but it's throwing baby out with the bathwater. Economic growth also encompasses doing same stuff better, and being more efficient with resource use. From what I've seen, the motivation behind criticism is usually twofold: criticizing greed, and worrying that ever-increasing use will exhaust available resources.