![]() ![]() Next, a simple "thought experiment" involving an egg (Part III) demonstrates by reductio ad absurdum that even when environmental issues are ignored, visions of limitless growth don't make much sense. ![]() It then asks: which is more ridiculous – a world with limits to growth, or a world without them? After some preliminary definitions (Part I), the paper briefly reviews the post-World War II rise of growth-based policies and academic growth theory (Solow 19 Romer 1990), and some of the rhetoric surrounding them (Part II), including the prospect offered by Paul Romer and others of growth continuing for "billions" of years. 1972) failed to come true on time, it's been all too easy to ridicule environmentally-based arguments against economic growth as pessimistic and "Malthusian." In contrast, this paper accepts, for the sake of argument, the most wildly optimistic estimates for the continuity of economic growth. Ever since the dire predictions of The Limits to Growth (Meadows & al.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |