5 ms·
The only reason growth is seen as good is because our population is increasing. As such growth has been coincidentally correlated with full employment and there
by dools 3y ago
The only reason growth is seen as good is because our population is increasing. As such growth has been coincidentally correlated with full employment and therefore prosperity. When the population levels out everyone will realise that we don’t need growth to achieve full employment and that optimisation is the new recipe for success. It’s a temporary problem.
As for private sector stupidity the antidote is stronger government and stronger institutions that can counter balance people making dumb decisions, not an attempt to regulate or shame away dumb decisions. The only problem is that the private sector has become too fetishised.
- steveBK123 3y agoYeah I don't think degrowth is a solution that fits with HumanOS. Humans unfortunately are wired to feel change but not levels. That is, standing still rarely feels good no matter how good the current state is. People are wired to seek a better lot in life, on average. This is hard to achieve without growth.
- dools 3y agoDegrowth is totally stupid as a movement.
- kiba 3y agoIf growth is doing more with less, then I'll welcome it.
- astrange 3y agoThat is what growth is. (Growing by using more resources is not mandatory at all, and is more expensive.) Degrowth is a bad idea invented by the British to make it look like they collapsed their economy on purpose instead of accidentally. Basically, you always need growth because that's what combats entropy.
- dools 3y agoIf the population is steady (as it will be by 2050) then you don’t need to increase production unless it’s to meet needs not already met. So the growth imperative now is mostly focused on job creation because people keep getting born. Growth in terms of absolute economic activity becomes less important if more people aren’t being added to the population however there may still be some growth necessary in order to increase equity of outcomes (although we may also just need a redistribution of existing economic activity to meet needs of the many over and above the needs of the few). What I meant by my comment initially is that in an economy where population is increasing rapidly one can just use growth in economic activity as a pretty good proxy for prosperity. Classic case of correlation!= causation though.
- steveBK123 3y agoWith steady population & increased lifespans, people better be ready to work til their 70s (at least) because you will have fewer workers per retiree to support them than in the growth model..