Skip to main content

What ecological sustainability ought to mean

Ecological sustainability require some kind of aspiration at least to genuinely respect the limits to growth. That we as a species have already breached. (See http://books.google.com/books/about/Beyond_the_limits.html?id=0ZO4AAAAIAAJ )
 
Here's my take on how these issues, especially the Green New Deal or its successor, should be framed:
 
What we actually need I think is the kind of programme envisaged in Tim Jackson's Prosperity without growth. 'Sustainable growth' by contrast is a piece of deceptive spin. I can't sign up to it; it would be like signing up to support 'clean coal'. It would be great if there were any reason at all to believe that it is an attainable objective. There isn't (see Porritt's book for the proof, btw), and there is good reason (see the work of Herman Daly, etc.) to believe that there is a principled reason why not. Because endless growth is a delusion, a fantasy. Now more than ever, with the world's ecological limits being increasingly breached, we need I believe to be clear about this.

Comments

Tim Allwood said…
How do you reconcile this with the fact that your leader has three children?
12 June 2011 at 16:21
Rupert said…
The old ad hominem (feminem) sh*te is the best ad hominem sh*te...
17 June 2011 at 14:18
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more