One of the problems is ecological destruction which has increased with economic growth. I would argue that because growth is so unevenly captured by those at the top, a very high gini coefficient is another problem.
You mean how clean things were in the industrial revolution? And how eglatarian it was under feudalism? Or back when slash and burn was the only agriculture? Back when we were causing mass extinctions with pointy sticks and still having a population in danger of extinction?
The halcyon past never existed. If we want things to get better we need to move more complex not simplified for the sake of aesthetics and sparing ourselves from having to use our thinkmeats.
All of the things you list are other great examples of problems caused by economic growth. That’s my point, to suggest growth comes “for free” or that there are no externalities, is to ignore all of human history.
We've reversed a lot of that destruction in the past century.
You're benefiting daily from that growth and your modern lifestyle (in 1st world countries) is far above what people enjoyed even half a century ago.
Unfortunately destruction is a necessary evil. There's no way to improve society while simultaneously avoiding any ecological change. Unless you're suggesting we all go back to some sort of nomadic lifestyle?
Not absolutely, but it can be a hell of a lot better than it is. We don't, for example need to have such a lot of disposable packaging, we don't need to farm the way we do etc
>We don't, for example need to have such a lot of disposable packaging, we don't need to farm the way we do etc
Ok, innovate a way to ship items across the world while keeping them from spoiling, getting damaged and make it so they're received in a timely manner. I'd also like to see how you can feed an entire planet with 1st world standards and not farm the way we do.
Just a hunch but my guess is you'll be no where near as efficient or viable as you think you would. I'm gonna place my trust in experts and not arm-chair internet activists.
The only reason you're even able to sit around and consider things like this IS because we've innovated to the point that your base needs are met without you having to lift a finger.
So, yes we should always strive to be better but you also need to take a few moments and realize the sort of advancements it took to put you in a position to consider issues like packaging/factory farming instead of where you're going to get your next meal or drink of water.
>The only reason you're even able to sit around and consider things like this IS because we've innovated to the point that your base needs are met without you having to lift a finger.
I'm at work right now, as I am for at least 24% of the hours of my life.
> We've reversed a lot of that destruction in the past century.
Not even close, where are you getting that from?
> Unless you're suggesting we all go back to some sort of nomadic lifestyle?
US car culture is the first thing I’d put on the chopping block. The US military and billionaires as a class are the two highest polluting entities on the planet. Lots of additional gains to be had there.
I would classify very little of our wonton destruction of the environment as “necessary evil”.
> You're benefiting daily from that growth and your modern lifestyle (in 1st world countries) is far above what people enjoyed even half a century ago.
I wonder if all the men who have lowered sperm counts agree with you…
Seriously? I'm not gonna do your work for you but look up reforestation efforts, ozone hole closing, re-population of once devastated animals, pollution etc. I mean you'd have to be completely ignorant or purposely seeking a specific agenda to miss this stuff. Are you suggesting nothing has improved in the last 50 years and we're on a continuous decline?
>US car culture is the first thing I’d put on the chopping block. The US military and billionaires as a class are the two highest polluting entities on the planet. Lots of additional gains to be had there.
What? This such a lame political response devoid of any better alternatives. Show us numbers and propose an alternative that's better.
Please show us the sources that billionaires and the US military are the highest polluting entities on the planet. That's obvious bs propaganda.
>I wonder if all the men who have lowered sperm counts agree with you…
Your measure for whether we're doing better than the past is sperm count? Huh?
You seem to be suffering from something recently coined progressophobia. I get there are problems but this strange denialism and refusal to admit we've progressed at all is not only wrong, it's harmful to society as a whole.
> If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal.
You said largest so you were wrong. Try again.
The second link is absolutely laughable. Gee large industries create more carbon footprint! No shit, that has nothing to do specifically with billionaires. Try getting your news from somewhere else other than GQ.
GQ and QZ aren't legitimate scientific sources bud.
