Well I didn't think I needed to spell it out since he spends most of the interview explicitly stating my second and third points. But if I must: - Daly points

Well I didn't think I needed to spell it out since he spends most of the interview explicitly stating my second and third points. But if I must: - Daly points out that GDP growth != welfare growth. In fact, growing GDP has negative externalities that might decrease aggregate welfare. By reducing GDP growth in wealthy countries he argues we might open up resources for developing economies to grow. This reduces to something like: Daly thinks GDP growth is worth it in poor places but thinks the costs associated with GDP growth in rich economies outweigh the benefits. This is my second point explicitly: he wants growth, but only the type he likes and not the type he doesn't. - Daly talks about richer countries needing to make "ecological room" for poor countries to grow. What he means is that the growth of richer countries requires the use of natural resources that could otherwise be used to fill the more basic needs of poorer countries. Weird zero sum-ism aside, this is essentially my third point, that we can redistribute wealth/outputs (technically inputs, but let's not split hairs) to reach a state of stable global contentment. I have no way of knowing if your statement was entirely rhetorical or not, but indeed, I have both benefitted significantly from our imperfect status quo and I wish for something like it to continue. Over a billion humans have been lifted from extreme poverty since 1990 [0]. I like that. I want more of that. Thats not to say I would like for our system to remain totally unchanged, however. You and I probably agree on a lot. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty