... Accordingly, this paper has argued that what is needed for true sustainability (as opposed to ‘greenwash’) is a transition to a fundamentally different kind of economy – an economy that seeks
sufficiency rather than limitless growth. This may not be a popular message, and it may already be too late for there to be a smooth transition beyond the growth model. But on a finite planet, there is no alternative. The sooner the world realises this, the better it will be for both people and planet.
We must embrace life beyond growth before it embraces us.
... And it may already be too late for there to be a smooth transition beyond the growth model. But on a finite planet, there is no alternative. The sooner the world realises this, the better it will be for both people and planet.
My view - the shit will hit the fan and any idea of smooth transition is laughable. It's hopeism (a mix of hope and optkmism) at its very best. Bit like the idea that we'll all be able to drive around in electric cars whilst we sing Kumbaya.
... Accordingly, this paper has argued that what is needed for true sustainability (as opposed to ‘greenwash’) is a transition to a fundamentally different kind of economy – an economy that seeks
sufficiency rather than limitless growth. This may not be a popular message, and it may already be too late for there to be a smooth transition beyond the growth model. But on a finite planet, there is no alternative. The sooner the world realises this, the better it will be for both people and planet.
We must embrace life beyond growth before it embraces us.
You are guilty of the same kind of dumb-ass optimism, albeit a slight variant. Instead of "techno-optimism", yours is an "ideo-optimism". Both of these cultural delusions, however, are born of the same geo-economic parent, namely the hydrocarbon age. and they are both as doomed as they are counterproductive.
Because it isn't realistic IMO. It might be physically possible and doable, but doesn't take into account human nature. Humans aren't going to suddenly shift into a different mode of thinking. We'll keep doing what we have always done: take things to the limit.
Perhaps technology will keep things ticking for a bit longer, perhaps not. C'est la vie.
Snail wrote:Because it isn't realistic IMO. It might be physically possible and doable, but doesn't take into account human nature. Humans aren't going to suddenly shift into a different mode of thinking. We'll keep doing what we have always done: take things to the limit.
Perhaps technology will keep things ticking for a bit longer, perhaps not. C'est la vie.
We are all going to die. And our civilisation is going to collapse.
We can discuss just when we'll personally die, and how involved we'll personally be in the collapse... but I don't really think claims (allegations?) of optimism or pessimism get us very far.
Snail wrote:Humans aren't going to suddenly shift into a different mode of thinking.
You are probably correct, but perhaps we should not completely rule out the possibility of the sort of shift that did occur in the USA in 1943 when Detroit stopped making cars and switched to planes and tanks. There's little sign of the sort of shift now required but I don't entirely give up hope of a passing straw to clutch at. After all, there are a great many people willing a change.
When I first read about TEQS I got really excited. I think so excited I wrote a powerswitch post at 4 am. I still think its great, but.. If it's unimplementable in the real world, that lessens its worth ?
Snail wrote:When I first read about TEQS I got really excited. I think so excited I wrote a powerswitch post at 4 am. I still think its great, but.. If it's unimplementable in the real world, that lessens its worth ?
If it is unimplementable in the real world, then it's real world worth is zero. Indeed, it could be argued that if something that is unimplementable in the real world continues to be pursued, then it's value is worse than zero since it detracts from time and energy spent on implementing other solutions that are more implementable. I'm not necessarily arguing here, that TeQs are unimplementable. Merely, that if you think they are then your only logical recourse is to dismiss them.
