11–20 of 92 posts
There are fewer hungry people in the world today compared to 20 years ago, in spite adding 1 billion people to the planet.
Is current level of growth even sustainable? (regarding environment, lifestyle issues --stress, depression, etc.--, quality of production, time for people to adapt to new paradigms, etc)?
How about less "growth" and better distribution, more quality, less rat racing?
THIS is the most depressing chart in the world: https://stormglas.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131116-00180...
This of course boldly assumes that human kind is the main source of carbon emissions, and as boldly assumes that Earth can't really have all this carbon in atmosphere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This of course boldly assumes that human kind is the main source of carbon emissions, and as boldly assumes that Earth can't really have all this carbon in atmosphere.
Well, if the first assumption doesn’t hold, we’ll have to restrict our usage even more. Short of dimming the sun, I don’t see how you can keep “all this carbon in atmosphere” and still only get 2°C.
> Short of dimming the sun, I don’t see how you can keep “all this carbon in atmosphere” and still only get 2°C.
This one assumes the carbon is main or even major substance that keeps heat on Earth. You do realize that we have much more water in the atmosphere, and water keeps heat much better than carbon? It's not as simple as "more carbon, higher temperatures".
I have very little understanding about economics but I always am scared of large GDP growth because it seems like that is when we go into recession due to bubbles. 1980s led to the recession of the early 1990s. The mid 1990s growth became the 2007-2009 "Great Recession." So this shows growth and it is steady so I don't find this depressing. edited one word
The problem is that slow, steady growth cannot support capitalism. In order to convince investors to risk their money, the economy must promise a more handsome return on their investment. That's why it's "bad news" when the economy "only" grows by 1-2% per year.
That sounds more like a solution.
It is depressing due to the Y-axis not starting on zero.
I have very little understanding about economics but I always am scared of large GDP growth because it seems like that is when we go into recession due to bubbles. 1980s led to the recession of the early 1990s. The mid 1990s growth became the 2007-2009 "Great Recession." So this shows growth and it is steady so I don't find this depressing. edited one word
The problem is that slow, steady growth cannot support capitalism. In order to convince investors to risk their money, the economy must promise a more handsome return on their investment. That's why it's "bad news" when the economy "only" grows by 1-2% per year.
Why should we expect or even want constant growth? Is current level of growth even sustainable? (regarding environment, lifestyle issues --stress, depression, etc.--, quality of production, time for people to adapt to new paradigms, etc)? How about less "growth" and better distribution, more quality, less rat racing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This of course boldly assumes that human kind is the main source of carbon emissions, and as boldly assumes that Earth can't really have all this carbon in atmosphere.
Yeah, damn that scientific consensus.
I have very little understanding about economics but I always am scared of large GDP growth because it seems like that is when we go into recession due to bubbles. 1980s led to the recession of the early 1990s. The mid 1990s growth became the 2007-2009 "Great Recession." So this shows growth and it is steady so I don't find this depressing. edited one word
The problem is that slow, steady growth cannot support capitalism. In order to convince investors to risk their money, the economy must promise a more handsome return on their investment. That's why it's "bad news" when the economy "only" grows by 1-2% per year.