- "Instead of having an economy that grows and makes us thrive, can we create an economy that makes us thrive without growing itself?"
It seems like an interesting way to look at sustainable economics - as the space between our rights and nature's ecological constraints. I'm sure though this is not the first proposal to replace an infinite-growth economy with a limited-growth one.
Can we just call it McSocialism and be done with it? 'cuz the idea of common resources and values being protected from private enterprise doesn't really need a visual aid.I'm sure though this is not the first proposal to replace an infinite-growth economy with a limited-growth one.
I don't get it. What kind of phase diagram makes sense without some sort of quantitative representation? Is this just a way of reminding ourselves that the things on the inside of the ring encroach on the things on the outside of the ring, and that they need to be balanced against one another? Or is there some secret sauce that's escaping me?
Really? Surely you've been on the internet that long. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-nonsensical-logo-redesign-document-1-million-for-this/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/mar/07/bad-science-pepsi-rebranding https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf banksyadvertisingquote.gif
The Guardian article ends withAnd even if this is an elaborate 27-page long spoof, the horror is that it's believable. Across huge swaths of the world, scientific reasoning is regarded as decorative: a rhetorical stance, or a speech in a white coat from a 1950s B-movie. We live in a world that has indulged these buffoons for so long that they think they are heroes, while nerds are regarded with contempt. Our only hope is that after the robot wars, you will all starve, cold and in the rain, wearing leaves and eating mud.
I haven't read her book, but it has been recommended to me. One of the reasons I asked is because I'm also not sure if I get it. What I think she wants to say is that this: ...is the big problem of our times, and that we need to curb growth so we can sustain the planet, but not destroy it so that we have our basic needs and rights met. E.g. have an economy that can provide everyone with clean drinking water, but where we don't ship mineral water across the globe because we can. I thought it was interesting because unlike many discussions about the ails of capitalism, it seems to me a first step towards outlining an economically viable solution."Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth on a planet with finite resources is either a madman or an economist." - Sir David Attenborough
That was Ken Boulding, actually. Now that it's been misattributed via a Reddit thread, no one will ever know the truth ever again.