3 ms·

Mainly because that means there is finite growth in the economy, and we've built a ponzi scheme of sorts at this point. It's a hard pill to swallow, that we can

Mainly because that means there is finite growth in the economy, and we've built a ponzi scheme of sorts at this point. It's a hard pill to swallow, that we can't just grow forever.

maxerickson 7y ago
The thing is, we can grow until we can't anymore. Preemptively choosing to struggle with what we had yesterday is not a good response to the idea that there is a limit. A good short term thing would be to more clearly understand the real costs of the things we do today. What is the long term environmental impact and so on.
lumberjack 7y ago
If you adhere by the definition of wealth that pg lays out in his famous essay, then it is not true that there is finite growth. The more accurate statement would be that there is a limit to the amount of consumption and consumerism that we are allowed to indulge ourselves in. In our present economy that might more or less be what everyone thinks growth is. But we could have other kinds of economic growth that do not impose a cost on our environment.
opportune 7y ago
We still have a long way to go to become more efficient, which is a way to continue growth without increasing our burden on the planet. Of course the issue there is that efficiency gains can only go so far, and you run into diminishing returns rather quickly. Also, economic growth does not necessarily rely on increased production of physical goods. If people stopped paying for physical toys in lieu of software, for instance, the economy very well could grow while the physical footprint of the average person decreased (all else remaining the same). If people preferred experiential entertainment such as movies, escape rooms, etc more than e.g. boating, that could also result in economic growth while physical consumption of goods decreases. But, while we can continue to grow economically without increasing physical consumption (all else being equal), the elephant in the room is that a very large portion of the world does not live a life even remotely similar to that of a wealthy, developed country resident wrt physical resource consumption. So even if we in rich countries maintained our resource usage, global demand for physical resources will continue to grow rapidly as other parts of the world develop. So are we willing to consign huge swathes of the globe to eternal poverty, or will we actively decrease our resource consumption?

Mainly because that means there is finite growth in the economy, and we've built a ponzi scheme of sorts at this point. It's a hard pill to swallow, that we can't just grow forever.

maxerickson 7y ago

The thing is, we can grow until we can't anymore. Preemptively choosing to struggle with what we had yesterday is not a good response to the idea that there is a limit. A good short term thing would be to more clearly understand the real costs of the things we do today. What is the long term environmental impact and so on.

lumberjack 7y ago

If you adhere by the definition of wealth that pg lays out in his famous essay, then it is not true that there is finite growth. The more accurate statement would be that there is a limit to the amount of consumption and consumerism that we are allowed to indulge ourselves in. In our present economy that might more or less be what everyone thinks growth is. But we could have other kinds of economic growth that do not impose a cost on our environment.

opportune 7y ago

We still have a long way to go to become more efficient, which is a way to continue growth without increasing our burden on the planet. Of course the issue there is that efficiency gains can only go so far, and you run into diminishing returns rather quickly. Also, economic growth does not necessarily rely on increased production of physical goods. If people stopped paying for physical toys in lieu of software, for instance, the economy very well could grow while the physical footprint of the average person decreased (all else remaining the same). If people preferred experiential entertainment such as movies, escape rooms, etc more than e.g. boating, that could also result in economic growth while physical consumption of goods decreases. But, while we can continue to grow economically without increasing physical consumption (all else being equal), the elephant in the room is that a very large portion of the world does not live a life even remotely similar to that of a wealthy, developed country resident wrt physical resource consumption. So even if we in rich countries maintained our resource usage, global demand for physical resources will continue to grow rapidly as other parts of the world develop. So are we willing to consign huge swathes of the globe to eternal poverty, or will we actively decrease our resource consumption?