Because relentless bad news breeds cynicism, which is demoralizing and self-defeating. In this community there’s already plenty of that to go round. The full story is slightly more complex.

  • solo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    Economic growth makes us all better,

    No. Economic growth under capitalism is the problem. Capitalism requires infinite growth on a finite planet, and this is what got us here in the first place. So this is not a sustainable economic system.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Completely agree. That one was a terrible take.

      Growthism is a de-facto religion IMO. The obsession with this weirdly abstract indicator is obviously irrational.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        In a liberal democracy, it hypothetically should allow for increased economic mobility, by making “new money” available to people to make their riches. As others have said, this is unsustainable in a finite system.

        Another way to allow for economic mobility is to free up some of the “old money” back into the economy.

        There are many ways to accomplish this.

    • Aeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      “Infinite growth is not sustainable in any natural system” is a daily mantra for me.

    • blakenong@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Having a country with billions of people is more of a problem than economic growth. We should cull the global herd by 90% for the sake of the planet and the survival of the species. Coincidentally, this would also impact economic growth, so I guess it’s a win-win.

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        To be clear, the problem is a factor of total population and per-capita economic activity. So reducing either will logically mitigate the problem. (The X factor being technology.)

        You seem to be advocating global genocide so your take is rightly unpopular.

        But clearly population is a major part of this problem. The sheer figure for human biomass is totally unsustainable for any kind of healthy global ecosystem. Personally I find it irritating that there are so many who deny these inconvenient facts.

          • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Okay Thanos, that’s enough for today. But you may be excited to know that birth rates across the globe are falling to the point that a population decline is in the works.

            • blakenong@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Thanos was right, but he was weak. Half? That only buys time.

              It does make me happy the population is going down, but it will go back up again. We have too many people for the resources of our planet, and the way we use those resources. We need to give back large amounts to Mother Earth.

              • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                I dunno man, I bet the current population trajectory plus improvements in efficiency/ conservation with a lot less capitalism will likely be sufficient. 90% just seems like a lot more work than necessary.

                • blakenong@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  22 hours ago

                  Prior to the Industrial Revolution the population hovered around 1 billion give or take a few hundred million. Let’s go back there.