Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
>I was quite taken with this paragrapgh, but on on second reading, the
>phrase, "we could keep growth within ecologically tolerable limits" struck
>me the wrong way. This idea of growth, whether capitalistic,
>entreprenueral, or just plain technolgocial change is so pervasive that it
>has become an unchallenged "truth" of any solution to the inequity of the
>current world situation.
You're right, Thomas. The fact that I didn't catch Singer's use of growth
attests to the insidiousness of the cliche. I suspect that Singer himself
might backtrack on what he meant by "growth". Ecologically tolerable limits
would require a reduction in aggregate industrial output -- although that
could be accomplished with an improvement in the standard of living (growth
of *real wealth*) given an appropriate definition of wealth as *disposable
time*.
regards,
Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm
