Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The impact of economic cycles is not controversial thus. If a longer (or lower) phase of static population is desirable, why not make a longer and deeper economic crisis as we can?

I thought of writing a diary on Ridley's "The Rational Optimist" some 2 years ago. Now I do not have it by hand. Some of the green moral bashing was there already. His article at WIRED is a summary enough. There is a lot of commentary out there, from Bill Gates to George Monbiot.

Yeah, the population was growing furnished as never, things were improving dramatically (until a few years ago) - thanks to...

It was neither capitalism nor communism that made possible the progress and pathologies (total war, the unprecedented concentration of global wealth, planetary destruction) of the modern age. It was coal, followed by oil and gas. The meta-trend, the mother narrative, is carbon-fuelled expansion. Our ideologies are mere subplots. Now, with the accessible reserves exhausted, we must ransack the hidden corners of the planet to sustain our impossible proposition [...]

As the philosopher Michael Rowan points out, the inevitabilities of compound growth mean that if last year's predicted global growth rate for 2014 (3.1%) is sustained, even if we miraculously reduced the consumption of raw materials by 90%, we delay the inevitable by just 75 years. Efficiency solves nothing while growth continues.

If we are really concerned about humanity and ecology, there is a necessity to face the planetary challenges freshly, without reliance on upsetting political mechanisms, white swan optimisms, "good for all" wishes. What difference would you really want to make?
by das monde on Fri Nov 7th, 2014 at 09:36:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series