4 ms·
> You can't have perpetual sustainability without perpetual growth. That sounds self-contradicting. How do you define «sustainability» in that case?
by setopt 4mo ago
> You can't have perpetual sustainability without perpetual growth.
That sounds self-contradicting. How do you define «sustainability» in that case?
- bit-anarchist 4mo agoThe property of preserving/sustaining itself.
- setopt 4mo agoOkay. Do you then consider an equilibrium to be inherently unsustainable? If you take «growth» to be defined as d(something)/dt>0, I’d posit that any equilibrium by definition has zero net growth, whether it’s a static or dynamic equilibrium.
- bit-anarchist 4mo agoFor social systems, yes. That said, in long run, there's both a tendency for most growth to fall and for basically nothing to be sustainable.