3 ms·
you're defending the author for wishy washy terminology. This is no different than someone who writes a screed against socialism, or affirmative action, and the
by cromwellian 13y ago
you're defending the author for wishy washy terminology. This is no different than someone who writes a screed against socialism, or affirmative action, and then pivots around and says "not all of it is bad"
Who is going to determine what growth is good and which is bad. Is growth in food output bad? Growth in HackerNews readership? Growth in tablet or smartphone usage? Growth in the number of people on the internet?
You can't just rail against growth and then hand-wave an exit from the argument. Specifics are needed.
- dnautics 13y agoI think you're mistaken. The author is very careful in his use of the term growthism versus growth. He doesn't at any point explicitly define what growthism is, but that's because the whole point of the essay is to introduce the concept to a new audience, so most of the essay is given over to (an admittedly diffuse) description of what, exactly it is. your point that the essay seems ranting, is valid, and definitely a weak point.