Surely, its the invention of materials such as plastics and CFCs
and the use of techniques such as energy from fossil fuels, that
have lead to environmental damage. Short-termism can't be blamed
for these. And why should you think that new materials and
and techniques are not going to damage the environment in ways we
don't yet know about?
Anne Scott
Dept of Social Policy
London School of Economics and Political Science
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Holden [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 12:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: rational choices?
>
>
> I would rather criticise the fallacy that economic growth is
> unsustainable. The invention of new materials and techniques
> allows us to continue to grow our economies without endangering
> our environment. It is the short-termism of the profit motive
> (or inadequate regulation) that leads to environmental damage,
> not growth itself.
>
> Chris.
>
> Dr Chris Holden
> Lecturer in Social Policy
> Department of Health and Social Care
> Brunel university
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:38:57 +0100 Ray Thomas
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Well said:
> > > economists would be better concentrating on the fallacy
> > > of unlimited economic growth,underpinning our entire
> > > social, economic and politicalsystem, rather than
> > > developing ever better models to predict economic behaviour.
> >
> > But why blame just the economists for this? Don't we all
> > uncritically accept economic statistics as indicators of
> > economic growth? Such statistics guide governments, because
> > they are the basis of govenmental revenue, as well as
> > capitalism that is equally dependent on growth.
> >
> > Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
> > Tel: 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
> > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > 35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
>
|