On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > great stuff, however utopian it may seem! It makes more sense to me > than dumping the idea of "growth" into the crapper, especially if the > meaning of "growth" is left unexamined.
Why do you say the meaning of growth is unexamined? It seems to me that it has been beaten to death. And it is this peculiar obsession with growth that's the biggest obstacle to progress on environmental issues. Gar says, "Social benefits from such a transformation (aside from global warming reduction) would result in net economic growth compared to the scenario in which we continue to use dirty energy." But suppose this is not the case, and moving to clean energy would lead to negative economic growth: would that make the clean energy program any less desirable? Why is it that we are unable to let go of this idea even in a progressive forum like PEN-L? -raghu. -- "We in the industry know that behind every successful screenwriter stands a woman. And behind her stands his wife." _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
