[stextbox id=”black”]Materialism is, by definition, the antithesis of green. Paolo Soleri
I recall Margaret Thatcher lambasting environmentalists who wanted to restrict car use by saying (words to the effect) “I will not have anyone destroying the Great British Motor Economy” even though by that time (the early 1980’s) the once great British Car Industry was a shadow of its former self. However, it still represented perhaps 10% of the economy (GDP).
Growth is seen as a panacea for a great many ills. It creates jobs, erodes debts and raises living standards. For politicians, it also generates votes. It is almost universally seen as a Good Thing.
Greater and ever-greater GDP is always spoken about as if were always a good thing, but is that really so?
Frivolous consumption, throwaway disposable products, indeed all kinds of waste, is good for the economy too.
If we stopped throwing things away and all reverted to re-usable bottles, jars, packaging, etc., the economy would shrink.
“Economic Growth” means more building, more production, and of course more waste.
But if everyone has an enviable standard of living, as they will do in DP, why do we need constant economic growth?
It also means the opportunity for some people to make more money
And for what purpose do we need more money?
So that we can buy more houses, more cars, more boats, more expensive holidays?
Or is it just the feeling of being better than others?