<It can be defined in more detail as an increase in economic activity, normally associated with, caused by and causing an increase in accumulated capital stock.>
Of course that's not detail at all.... those are words describing words with no concrete inputs at all. "Economic activity" could mean a million things... currently it only includes cash register receipts as far as I know, and assumes one dollar of X has the same intrinsic value as one dollara of Y and leaves out quite a bit of "underground" things as well... but feel free to jump in.
<It might be unseen because it isn't there.>
And it might be unseen but be there... of course there are obvious examples demonstrating this... so we know that this phenomenon exists.
<They are used even if they are not burned as fuel, or used as construction materials. They are used as for the pleasure of viewing them, and to covert remove CO2 and add oxygen to the environment, and they provide habitat for animals, etc.>
That's the point... many values are not quantified and included in economic growth numbers and in fact often have an inverse relationship to economic growth in the short run... which is pretty much the only one anyone looks at using current models.
<Since death (absent something like being at ground zero for a nuclear blast, or being dropped in to a vat of sulfuric acid) isn't an instantaneous all at once thing,>
Yes, the point being that just because there are "some" natural assets left is pretty much meaningless. Having a few heart cells left doesn't help the other organs, or the brain... and you die. LOL
<The damage over the very large scale (the planet) is minimal.>
Obviously that is a point that plenty of scientists argue about....
<And in fact economic growth gives us extra resources to prevent and mitigate environmental harm>
Well, from someone who thinks there IS no harm, I fail to see why you would use that argument... in fact it's just the exact flip side of they type claim that you would whine about from those who think the planet is becoming damaged and we need to do something.... you would say "you don't know what to do that would help".
<while giving more people enough of a surplus to care about it (near starving people aren't going to care, unless its the cause of their condition, and even then they might make it worse to continue to live).>
Well, this is just another claim like the previous that can easily be argued from the exact opposite position. A complex issue that is pretty much impossible to "prove" one way or another. It comes back to "what is true in one time and place may not be true in another"....
I would say your assertion is a good one from the standpoint that SOME growth and surplus, primitive societies allow for education and ability to ponder the larger questions that can help the planet... the "evolution of society" has allowed for whole segments of the population in fact that ponder these things and research them.... but of course these people are in disagreement AND it's completely unclear that more and more growth and more an more people studying these things (as well as consuming more and more goods) is ALWAYS better.... in fact at some level, greater & greater growth AT THE EXPENSE of resources like trees, air, and water is obviously BAD.... it's just a matter of where we are on the curve.
DAK |
