Talk about hand wavy: >A more likely trajectory is Reform, where we respond to global crises such as climate change but in an inadequate and piecemeal way that

Talk about hand wavy: >A more likely trajectory is Reform, where we respond to global crises such as climate change but in an inadequate and piecemeal way that merely extends the Breakdown curve outwards, to a greater or lesser extent. Here governments put their faith in reformist ideals such as ‘green growth’, ‘reinventing capitalism’, or a belief that technological solutions are just around the corner. >A third trajectory is Transformation, where we see a radical shift in the values and institutions of society towards a more long-term sustainable civilization. For instance, we jump off the Breakdown curve onto a new pathway dominated by post-growth economic models such as Doughnut Economics or a Green New Deal. He makes these statements in these two sections, preceded by a first section in which he criticizes the 20th century business as usual "greed of avaricious capitalism and resource consumption, but then in the third point refers two two specific linked projects that are both exactly what he describes as piecemeal hybrids of capitalism and "new thinking" of the kind that's supposedly wrong in the first quoted paragraph above. Denmark is in no way escaping from the world's modern economic machinery with its so-called doughnut project and the green new deal is a gargantuan exercise in spending, ideological biases that could easily derail it for their lack of objectivity, and problematic, tenuous reasoning at best. Talk about generalization that just sweeps important substance under a rug of feel-good concepts. So far it is exactly a pragmatic mix of technology, piecemeal innovation, "selfish" market exchange, speculative investment and also of course gradually improved laws coupled with activism that have made the world better over centuries and decades. Not massive "transformative" notions. The literal attempts at applying things in which a complete transformation is claimed have if anything bathed the last 100 years in blood more than anything else. The author of this essay makes some very good points but more than anything, mashes his overall argument together in a hand wavy way that's riddled with absurdly biased cliches about the evils of modern society and capitalism which are heavily rooted in pop ideology and platitudes without substance. Not the best basis for genuinely objective attempts at long term thinking. The word "blockchain" even managed to get tossed in there. I mean, imagine the sort of reasoning, biases and specific dogmas that a 16th century version of this document would have in making arguments for how we should plan for the future, and imagine just how absurdly removed they would be from most of the real problems that the future actually confronted us with, especially compared to said hypothetical author's absorption in the shallow, highly specific political correctness of his own time.