Growth criticism (V): overpopulation, wealth and technology – secession in the network (Blog)

To set Debate

Felix Menzel ->

Pages: 1 2 3

In my previous contributions to growth criticism it went to a single time ecology, even though almost all left and right ways of thinking on the subject begin by noting, in a finite world with limited resources there could be no infinite growth. This is of course true, but it led to the hasty conclusion that we would have to break the growth imperative in order to save the environment.

The resulting program the growth critics reads then always very similar: you want to give people an enact ecologically correct consumption and force companies to focus on environmentally friendly technologies. To be monitored so from a State which would have to apply a more or less gentle totalitarianism green embossed to achieve what want the theorists.

Practical examples of how this looks at the end, there are few , but they are there: The little Asian kingdom of Bhutan, Bolivia and Ecuador have introduced such projects even in their constitutions. What is astonishing success achieved in these countries to resist the commodification of all spheres of life and to protect the environment, however, may be due to large differences in terms of population density, not transferred technological standards and average income one on one to the wealthiest countries in the world.

In particular, an acquisition of models of prosperity of these countries falls short because a critical growth agenda Germany or Europe would still be prepared for very different problems solutions in addition to environmental protection. What these are is evident when the so-called “Ehrlich equation” look at that says:

Environmental Impact = Population x income (consumption) x Technology

The biggest threat to the environment is thereby now the western wealth is followed by global population growth. The negative impact on the environment through resource-efficient technologies to reduce the other hand, promises the least improvement, because this would have to develop much faster than the population and income grow

Pages:. 1 2 3