Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brynjo's avatar

Alex Epstein as if cutting a Gordian Knot cuts through all these variants of anti humanity, by distinguishing those philosophers who measure progress, prosperity and morality in terms of human flourishing, versus those, now fashionable, thinkers who measure progress in terms of reducing impact or returning to nature.

For example, naturally occurring fresh water is laden with sediment, bacteria, by products of decomposition etc. Progress is serving billions a day with much cleaner municipal water. One metric rates that a win, the other a loss.

Expand full comment
Mark Miles's avatar

In my view, the degrowth people present a genuine conundrum that policy experts should confront explicitly. The degrowth idea is that there is not enough energy, mineral or ecological resources on the planet for all humans to arrive at the same level of consumption as even the lower quintiles of the developed nations. Humans are increasingly in what Jason Hickel calls “transgression of biophysical boundaries.”

This is basically the current version of Malthusianism. So far, the Malthusians have consistently underestimated the potential of technological innovation. But the argument that humans are blindly heading into irreversible ecological overshoot remains compelling. It is a very likely scenario.

I think Jason Hickel wholly agrees with Milanovic’s math. He then does what Malthusian’s have always done, which is to start choosing the winners and losers from a top-down ideological framework. You can see that in the linked Nature article. “Government action is crucial. This is a challenge, because those in power have ideologies rooted in mainstream neoclassical economics, and tend to have limited exposure to researchers who explore economics from other angles.”

Here's my point. Climate change and resource scarcity are genuine predicaments created by the fossil fuel age--- predicaments for which there may not be a good way to avoid tragedy. So we need to make a choice at the highest ethical level. Do we let the environmentalists continue their classist project of creating food and energy scarcity for the global poor. Or, do we explicitly embrace the goal of abundant-energy-for-all humans, even as we recognize the uncertainties of this techno-optimistic approach?

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts