> "There have always been paradigm shifts, therefore there will be more", isn't that the very definition of wishful thinking? It'd be wishful thinking if there

> "There have always been paradigm shifts, therefore there will be more", isn't that the very definition of wishful thinking? It'd be wishful thinking if there was no evidence to back up that claim. However, these paradigm shifts have happened in the past: hunter-gatherer society -> nomadism -> husbandry -> agriculture -> crop rotation -> industrialisation -> information age / green revolution -> digitalisation Extrapolating from that there's no reason to assume this will suddenly end. I'm in favour of doing realistic accounting. However, the original title was something along the lines of "In order to reduce energy consumption we need to give up growth.", which turns Jancovici's conclusion on its head. Not taking into account or neglecting the GDP/NRJ part of the equation and solely focussing on NRJ/POP is tantamount to falling for the same defeatist Malthusian fallacy that we're doomed anyway.