Do you really think measuring growth rather than sustainability is a good idea?

[Taverner]

Discuss...

[customerserviceguy]

1. Growth has specific systems already in place for measuring it

how would you propose that we measure sustainability, and whether or not it is "successful"? If I'm making what I was making ten years ago, is that sustainability?

[Taverner]

2. I don't know - but growth cannot go on forever...

When it comes to limited resources

[customerserviceguy]

8. Well, perhaps the definition of "limited"

might change. The very earliest methods of agriculture could only support relatively small populations, but improvements in methods, crops, and infrastructure allowed a "limited" parcel of land to support more people than subsistence farming.

Would the development of a cold-fusion reactor radically redefine our notions on the limitations of energy? Of course it would.

Maybe the answer is to not avoid growth, but to manage it so that it comes only from the advances made by the sciences, and not simply at the expense of the environment.

[taterguy]

3. Growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell

At least according to Edward Abbey

[Taverner]

4. I never saw it in those terms - wow

[customerserviceguy]

9. You could apply that same maxim

to any form of reproduction by biological organisms. Growth brings about genetic diversity, which increases the odds of species survival.

I find it difficult to think of a cancer cell as having a "philosophy", just a biological imperative that we need to figure out how to disconnect the wiring of.

[jmg257]

5. I don't know - I'll have to ask my wife ;)

[GoesTo11]

6. Growth = Jobs!

Or so they say. But that doesn't make sense. Why doesn't sustainability = sustainable jobs? We have a system now where if we just sustain the same production, people are going to be progressively ruined. Why should it be that in a country that creates over $14 trillion of new product and service per year, people should suffer unless it moves up to $15 trillion? I said in another post that $14 trillion comes out to about $180,000 per family of 4. That should really be enough for a pretty good quality of life, yes? And if productivity goes up, then take longer weekends and more vacations.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Sustainable growth is both necessary and, I think, possible.

That doesn't mean that all growth is sustainable, but we're not necessarily going to be facing resource crunches any time soon. Vast amounts of solar, geothermal, and wind energy remain untapped, and really energy is the only limiting factor. Sure, food will be too, but there isn't a limitation on land; there's only a limitation on how land is used. A pound of beef requires sixteen pounds of corn/soy, after all.