6 ms·

Continuous growth is necessary to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If there cannot be continuous growth, who becomes the arbiter of human potential?

Continuous growth is necessary to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If there cannot be continuous growth, who becomes the arbiter of human potential? People who call growth cancer? You can't be serious.

stkdump 4y ago
People grow (in height) for the first ~1.5 decades of their life, and then stop growing. It appears to me that there is more to it.
- logicchains 4y ago
  That's biology stopping growth. Do you think it'd be a good idea to let the government decide how tall people can grow, if we had the technology for that?
  - stkdump 4y ago
    Who is talking about government? I am just refuting the argument that continued growth is necessary for life.
- corbulo 4y ago
  Does your biology analogy stretch to macroevolution aswell?
wizofaus 4y ago
Future generations also deserve life liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness and fulfill their potential surely. The issue would not so much seem to be "continuous" growth but unfettered growth (as per a narrow set of metrics) now that potentially destroys the chances of our children and grand children enjoying the benefits of that growth. If it's necessary to make decisions to dampen (or even suspend) growth now to ensure it that doesn't happen then so be it, though I'd argue it's more important to look at what we're actually measuring and ensuring we're growing in a direction that's actually sustainable.
- corbulo 4y ago
  Who should be the authority on good growth vs. bad growth? Should this extend to caps on individual wealth aswell? Who should decide how rich people can get AND how much growth can happen? Seems like you're just changing masters.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    There's nothing inherently special about the type of growth that tends to be focused on currently - it just happens to be what we've already got mechanisms in place to measure and requires relatively minimal effort to maintain. If a democratically elected government can, with the advice of appropriate experts, develop better metrics for measuring growth and determining its long term viability, how is that a bad thing?
    - corbulo 4y ago
      You're saying Joe Biden or Trump or Kamala Harris should have the ultimate authority over growth? Those are the people you trust to cap human potential?
      - svnt 4y ago
        You understand they don’t make laws, right?
        corbulo 4y ago
        You're saying the current or previous congress should decide what human growth should look like then? I don't see how thats much better
        wizofaus 4y ago
        It's easy to poke fun at government incompetency but like it or not they are who your country elected to make the sorts of decisions that shape its future. The only truly abysmal government is one that is paralysed into doing nothing at all.
kilgnad 4y ago
Growth itself is not cancer. Growth that never ends is cancer, because it eventually consumes all available resources in the system. I mean this is raw inescapable logic, there's no argument against this. There's an alternative way. A simpler life. The term for it is called equilibrium. It's not a bad way of life. It's very hollywoody but essentially the movie Avatar is sort of a window the essential nature of what a life of equilibrium is.
- corbulo 4y ago
  How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? If someone comes up with a new technology that will give us the ability to colonize the galaxy, or quantum teleport, or have years long battery life, should it be thrown away for being too disruptive to the 'equilibrium'?
  - danaris 4y ago
    > How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? It's a matter of perspective. If one sees one's own growth as an axiomatic good, then of course equilibrium will look like stagnation and the first step to death. If, instead, one sees oneself as one part of a greater whole, all of which deserves consideration and has a place, equilibrium starts to look like a natural goal and a place of respect for everyone. And your argument that we would throw away new technologies because they disrupt an equilibrium is a strawman; no one is suggesting that. "Technological progress" and "unconstrained growth" are not synonymous. Let me turn this around on you and ask you this: What is the ultimate goal of your unending growth?
    - corbulo 4y ago
      Technological progress historically has functioned as a very high multiplier for growth. From the industrial revolution to communication technologies. Controlling all growth in order to live in peace is an idea that is 100+ years old. Mackinder(widely regarded as the founder of geopolitics, was the director of LSE) wrote about it. It was his vision to foster the league of nations. By the end of his work describing such he goes down to limiting the freedom of individuals quite significantly. He was the seed for groups like the World Economic Forum and the current international bodies such as the WTO, WHO, UN, etc. I'm not sure you realize the measures that would have to be taken down to the individual level to control all growth. Life would be unrecognizable compared to what it is today. Oh, and no one would be allowed to exist outside the system. It would only be possible in a highly authoritarian world government. Answer to your question: Colonizing the galaxy and eternal progression of welfare for humanity.
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
You think infinite growth with finite resources is possible? This should be good.
- dopeboy 4y ago
  What finite resources? We are the human species - we go where the resources are, which will involve colonizing other planets.
  - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
    Uh-huh, okay.
- corbulo 4y ago
  Which resource are we going to run out of that will halt all progress for which there are no adaptations? We're constantly finding gigantic reserves of resources. We are closer to being able to synthesize all the resources we want or need than we are to inflexibly running out of them.
  - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
    Fossil fuels are quite finite.
    - corbulo 4y ago
      There's plenty of them to go around and are plenty of adaptations for when there wont be anymore. You ignored 90% of what you replied to.
      - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        It's simply taken on faith that we'll find such resources, in such great abundance that we'll never run out of them, that we're not decades away from cooking the planet beyond livability.

stkdump 4y ago

People grow (in height) for the first ~1.5 decades of their life, and then stop growing. It appears to me that there is more to it.

logicchains 4y ago
That's biology stopping growth. Do you think it'd be a good idea to let the government decide how tall people can grow, if we had the technology for that?
- stkdump 4y ago
  Who is talking about government? I am just refuting the argument that continued growth is necessary for life.
corbulo 4y ago
Does your biology analogy stretch to macroevolution aswell?

wizofaus 4y ago

Future generations also deserve life liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness and fulfill their potential surely. The issue would not so much seem to be "continuous" growth but unfettered growth (as per a narrow set of metrics) now that potentially destroys the chances of our children and grand children enjoying the benefits of that growth. If it's necessary to make decisions to dampen (or even suspend) growth now to ensure it that doesn't happen then so be it, though I'd argue it's more important to look at what we're actually measuring and ensuring we're growing in a direction that's actually sustainable.

corbulo 4y ago
Who should be the authority on good growth vs. bad growth? Should this extend to caps on individual wealth aswell? Who should decide how rich people can get AND how much growth can happen? Seems like you're just changing masters.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  There's nothing inherently special about the type of growth that tends to be focused on currently - it just happens to be what we've already got mechanisms in place to measure and requires relatively minimal effort to maintain. If a democratically elected government can, with the advice of appropriate experts, develop better metrics for measuring growth and determining its long term viability, how is that a bad thing?
  - corbulo 4y ago
    You're saying Joe Biden or Trump or Kamala Harris should have the ultimate authority over growth? Those are the people you trust to cap human potential?
    - svnt 4y ago
      You understand they don’t make laws, right?
      - corbulo 4y ago
        You're saying the current or previous congress should decide what human growth should look like then? I don't see how thats much better
        wizofaus 4y ago
        It's easy to poke fun at government incompetency but like it or not they are who your country elected to make the sorts of decisions that shape its future. The only truly abysmal government is one that is paralysed into doing nothing at all.

kilgnad 4y ago

Growth itself is not cancer. Growth that never ends is cancer, because it eventually consumes all available resources in the system. I mean this is raw inescapable logic, there's no argument against this. There's an alternative way. A simpler life. The term for it is called equilibrium. It's not a bad way of life. It's very hollywoody but essentially the movie Avatar is sort of a window the essential nature of what a life of equilibrium is.

corbulo 4y ago
How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? If someone comes up with a new technology that will give us the ability to colonize the galaxy, or quantum teleport, or have years long battery life, should it be thrown away for being too disruptive to the 'equilibrium'?
- danaris 4y ago
  > How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? It's a matter of perspective. If one sees one's own growth as an axiomatic good, then of course equilibrium will look like stagnation and the first step to death. If, instead, one sees oneself as one part of a greater whole, all of which deserves consideration and has a place, equilibrium starts to look like a natural goal and a place of respect for everyone. And your argument that we would throw away new technologies because they disrupt an equilibrium is a strawman; no one is suggesting that. "Technological progress" and "unconstrained growth" are not synonymous. Let me turn this around on you and ask you this: What is the ultimate goal of your unending growth?
  - corbulo 4y ago
    Technological progress historically has functioned as a very high multiplier for growth. From the industrial revolution to communication technologies. Controlling all growth in order to live in peace is an idea that is 100+ years old. Mackinder(widely regarded as the founder of geopolitics, was the director of LSE) wrote about it. It was his vision to foster the league of nations. By the end of his work describing such he goes down to limiting the freedom of individuals quite significantly. He was the seed for groups like the World Economic Forum and the current international bodies such as the WTO, WHO, UN, etc. I'm not sure you realize the measures that would have to be taken down to the individual level to control all growth. Life would be unrecognizable compared to what it is today. Oh, and no one would be allowed to exist outside the system. It would only be possible in a highly authoritarian world government. Answer to your question: Colonizing the galaxy and eternal progression of welfare for humanity.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago

You think infinite growth with finite resources is possible? This should be good.

dopeboy 4y ago
What finite resources? We are the human species - we go where the resources are, which will involve colonizing other planets.
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  Uh-huh, okay.
corbulo 4y ago
Which resource are we going to run out of that will halt all progress for which there are no adaptations? We're constantly finding gigantic reserves of resources. We are closer to being able to synthesize all the resources we want or need than we are to inflexibly running out of them.
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  Fossil fuels are quite finite.
  - corbulo 4y ago
    There's plenty of them to go around and are plenty of adaptations for when there wont be anymore. You ignored 90% of what you replied to.
    - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
      It's simply taken on faith that we'll find such resources, in such great abundance that we'll never run out of them, that we're not decades away from cooking the planet beyond livability.