In a democratic society, people have a choice. Perhaps they don't understand their options, but it's clearly up for debate, as we're doing now. > spend less i

In a democratic society, people have a choice. Perhaps they don't understand their options, but it's clearly up for debate, as we're doing now. > spend less in order to save the environment That's an ironic argument, given the proposal of Bitcoin as the alternative. The choice to not expand the money supply is as much an intervention as expanding it, with equally predictable consequences. If the money supply contracts relative to demand, people will reduce their investment and consumption activity. That's generally seen as undesirable, except to the extent that the investment and consumption has negative externalities.