lcam84

14 ms·

91.
by lcam84 7y ago
As is taught in schools, we first reduce, then reuse and only then recycle, in that order. Here we are already giving emphasis to reuse, but it is better than just recycling.
92.
by lcam84 7y ago
This question of infinite progress really makes me think. Do we really want progress that grows exponentialy indefinitly? Humans should have finite needs so if we are competent enough for solve them is only natural that progress will stall
93.
by lcam84 7y ago
It depends. If it generate any kind of money exchange it counts to GDP. But there are many solutions that don't generate growth (like walking to work instead of using other means of transportation) The way we measure growth is nuts. th
94.
by lcam84 7y ago
Most of human ingenuity is based on the consumption of cheap finite resources. Every time we had new tecnologies it results in more consuption of resources. We need to listen what the science is telling us for 40 years now with the report f
95.
by lcam84 7y ago
You also have the club of rome that used system theory and arrive the conclusion that growth have phisical limits [1]. We can also see the work of Vaclav Smil [2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Z6h-U4CmI&t=187s [
96.
by lcam84 7y ago
Isn't most of the ammonia produced using fossil fuels?
97.
by lcam84 7y ago
We should set the economic growth to less than zero but odly it only can be set between 1.7% and 3.7%. Sadly we can image the end of the world but not the end of capitalism
98.
by lcam84 8y ago
The book is called "limits to growth", and it's a work of the Club of Rome. You can watch this video to have an idea of their work [1]. At first it's a very strange idea, afterall we work and consume everyday in order to
99.
by lcam84 8y ago
We need to get rid of GDP as a measure of progress. There are better measures like genuine progress Indicator. A measure that improves with pollution, disease and war must not be used for the sake of all.
100.
by lcam84 8y ago
We defined work and productivity as the end in it self but it's not. We regard automation as the main cause of unemployment but what was the automation that produced the unemployment and underemployment that we are seeing right now? T