I agree. The whole article is pinned on the idea that infinite economic growth is not only possible, but critical. Even given that premise, it assumes that population growth is required for that.
I don’t feel like you need to be an economist or mathematician to understand that perpetual economic growth based on finite resources is no achievable.
Maybe instead of doubling down on the old model that has driven us to ecological disaster we should look for a new one.
I don’t feel like you need to be an economist or mathematician to understand that perpetual economic growth based on finite resources is no achievable.
Maybe instead of doubling down on the old model that has driven us to ecological disaster we should look for a new one.