[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
On 5 Nov 1996 12:27:53 GMT, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>> > Why not try the work-smarter approach of putting at least half our
>> > effort into *reducing demand* instead of always looking toward
>> > increasing the supply of everything?
>
>That is only *working smarter*, insofar as excessive demand is
>generated by inefficient work methods. Something
>different, however, is implied here:
You have yet to demonstrate any *logical reason* for struggling to
keep pace with growth as some sort of means to an end. You make
a grave error in trying to extrapolate future benefits of growth from
historical benefits. It's like saying that a baseball team will do
better with 90 players than with 9. You refuse to account for
*physical* limits to human endeavors, and plain old elbow room.
Or do you not think Man lives in a physical realm, I wonder?
>> > The assumption that we can
>> > support 15 billion people is the wrong attitude to begin with.
>
>The suggestion, then, is not *working smarter* but
>*living less*, in fewer numbers. No, thank you.
>You go first.
What the heck do you mean by "living less?" Do we "live less" when
we go on vacation and manage to find a beach that isn't packed like a
sardine can? Do we "live less" when we move to an area where the air
is cleaner because there are fewer people and fewer cars?
ZPG does not necessarily mean fewer numbers (that's NPG). Zero growth
proponents are merely saying enough is enough! And we've been saying
this for decades as we watch the population grow and grow and grow.
Each year that passes is another compromise, another chunk taken out
of wilderness and another burden on finite resources. What is the
*point* of seeing how many people we can pack into a given land area?
It has no more meaning than packing 20 students into a Volkswagen.
The students get uncomfortable and the car is rendered un-drivable.
>>There is enough available surface for solar energy to serve as our
>>main source. (J. McCarthy's quote)
>At current energy consumption levels, enough for
>trillions of people, let alone 15 billion.
>Of course these levels need to be increased;
>but even so, surface area is not a limiting factor.
>And if it were - what's wrong with
>capturing sunlight off-planet?
Are you clinically insane, or do you really believe that "trillions"
of people can be supported when we've already got problems
with less than 1% of that number? Are you aware that a billion is a
thousand million and a trillion is a thousand billion? You are either
a complete idiot, or your posts have been an ongoing joke. Please
come clean. They say ad-hominem attacks are petty, but I'm afraid
your ludicrous statements offer no other recourse. Please at least
answer this simple question (about the "trillions" nonsense).
- A.J.
http://www.midtown.net/~alnev/zpg/zpg.htm
Follow-Ups:
References: