4 ms·
> we could instead revisit the concept we have of growth You say 'we' like humanity wasn't 7 billions or so completely autonomous actors. This would be a more
by bpizzi 7y ago
> we could instead revisit the concept we have of growth
You say 'we' like humanity wasn't 7 billions or so completely autonomous actors.
This would be a more accurate sentence: '7 billions autonomous actors could decide to act as one, and the act could be lowering its growth rate'.
You see, it simply won't happen.
- pietrovismara 7y agoFirst of all, it's not 7 billions sentients but rather a handful of government. Furthermore, humanity at the moment already agrees blindly that the only way forward is reckless growth, if we all managed to agree on something without even knowing why, perhaps we can also agree on something more rational.
- bpizzi 7y ago> rather a handful of government. Which are mostly democracies, or sort of. China, Russia and North Korea apart, every big population center is governed in a way or another threw a certain form of consensus. > humanity at the moment already agrees blindly that the only way forward is reckless growth Again you talk as if humans were a single body. You're not agreeing blindly on 'reckless growth', as far as I can tell, and you're far from being alone in that case. Humanity speaking and thinking as one is just a dream (you're free to dream, thought!).