We should
switch to the steady state economy scientists have been talking about this since
the 60s, and now their models are the most accurate (Limits to Growth).
The biggest threat is to the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. Our
dependence on primary production and of course our food dependence of
fossil fuels.
Economic computer models fail example because humans can look at these models and then change their behavior. In contrast exponential growth models and nature are much more accurate. Partly
because biology is based on physics, chemistry and economics amounts to
the ideology (that person Ratzionili, nature is passive, nature
provides services only natural raw materials, we have complete
information, etc.).
Energy saving systems are not the solution. Any Joul saved by technology goes to continued economic growth, increased per
capita consumption or increasing the size of the population.
I=PAT.
You
can not maintain that counter-cyclical economy going and growing at an
exponential rate in a finite world. That economists do not want to understand. The
only way a steady state economy - limiting cyclic population and
economy without economic growth per capita - but it is not clear how the
evolution of social institutions and our genetic evolution support such
a thing.
I read things to this nature on an Israeli magazine talkback and thought its worth sharing.
Subscribe