Wright is a great scholar, but It is false that endless growth is incompatible with the sustainability of the planet. Natural resources, as a rule, are reproducible - those which are usually called nonrenewable like oil are in fact just renewable in a very long time horizon. The sustainability issue is therefore a question of reconciling two ratios, the growth rate and the rate of reproductibility of the different forms of natural capital under exam. There is no absolute upper bound. The hearth is a closed, not an isolated system, and the sun will provide energy for the planet's living systems to renew themselves as long as it burns. Moreover, economic growth does not in any way imply a growing, or even constant, use of energy. Technological change can save on more scarce resources - as it usually does when knowledge of this scarcity is somehow produced and circulated via competitive prices or government intervention. This, in all likelihood, means that capitalism - especially in its "neoliberal" variety - is not very effective and fast at solving the issue. However, it also means that no, there is no "contradiction" or iron law about capitalism being bound to destroy the planet. For old-fashioned it may sound, the best case against capitalism concerns humans, and human liberty and progress. The environment is just one of many ancillary issues capitalism is not so good at managing, but socialists should not overbid on it.
+distopiadnb it is true that oil is renewable over a long period of time.... but in terms of human timescales; it is not worth seeing oil as renewable.
+Joshua Hardman other natural resources are reproducible at a much faster rate. However, my point was that once it is understood that it is all about reconciling two ratios, then the proper level of "possibilism" entailed by the problem is restored. This, in turn, should stimulate people to discuss about the ways technological progress can be induced by means of appropriate policies, instead of betting on some unspecified irreversible process which fortunately enough for us just leads to socialism and all things good. That is not going to happen - not the disconnected happy ending anyway. Better to start from the basics of the present problem before venturing in heroic diagnoses.
This is what sociology is
For 10 million dollars I'll go ahead and come up with a road map as well as a new complete Utopian system.
Wright is a great scholar, but It is false that endless growth is incompatible with the sustainability of the planet. Natural resources, as a rule, are reproducible - those which are usually called nonrenewable like oil are in fact just renewable in a very long time horizon. The sustainability issue is therefore a question of reconciling two ratios, the growth rate and the rate of reproductibility of the different forms of natural capital under exam. There is no absolute upper bound. The hearth is a closed, not an isolated system, and the sun will provide energy for the planet's living systems to renew themselves as long as it burns. Moreover, economic growth does not in any way imply a growing, or even constant, use of energy. Technological change can save on more scarce resources - as it usually does when knowledge of this scarcity is somehow produced and circulated via competitive prices or government intervention.
This, in all likelihood, means that capitalism - especially in its "neoliberal" variety - is not very effective and fast at solving the issue. However, it also means that no, there is no "contradiction" or iron law about capitalism being bound to destroy the planet. For old-fashioned it may sound, the best case against capitalism concerns humans, and human liberty and progress. The environment is just one of many ancillary issues capitalism is not so good at managing, but socialists should not overbid on it.
+distopiadnb it is true that oil is renewable over a long period of time.... but in terms of human timescales; it is not worth seeing oil as renewable.
+Joshua Hardman other natural resources are reproducible at a much faster rate. However, my point was that once it is understood that it is all about reconciling two ratios, then the proper level of "possibilism" entailed by the problem is restored. This, in turn, should stimulate people to discuss about the ways technological progress can be induced by means of appropriate policies, instead of betting on some unspecified irreversible process which fortunately enough for us just leads to socialism and all things good. That is not going to happen - not the disconnected happy ending anyway. Better to start from the basics of the present problem before venturing in heroic diagnoses.