> The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap.
What? Why?
I mean, yeah, "at all costs" is a little extreme, but the alternative isn't to only value the simple, close by, and cheap. I kind of like the fact that humanity strives for better and better things - it's what took us from the age of 50% of children dying by the age of 5, to barely any dying. It's what took us from the age of the majority living in poverty and hunger, to the majority living far better lives.
It's what will hopefully take us from all the problems we have now, to all the solutions to those problems that we can't even conceive of yet.
I may be misunderstanding you completely - but if I'm not, what's wrong with that?
I also like for humanity to strive for better and better things. But do you get that mostly, "better" has just meant that someone else pays the cost?
My point is that a real look into "better" will often (probably! Not necessarily!) lead a person to minimize his or her ill effects. Naturally, being decent, they'll try to maximize their good effects. I pointed to a tradition like zen to evoke minimalism, to evoke noticing the smallest details. There are certainly many ways to improve.
I guess I spoke in a strong way so that my words wouldn't be immediately lost. If it sounds like I'm devaluing too many just plain good aspects of humanity then I can say I didn't mean to say that.
Now...I do quibble with the set of facts you offer that indicate the now is the best. Yes, life is so good for so many. Though we are clearly not in balance. We are heating up the atmosphere and we don't have a solution. That is an actual problem, right? Yes, it's easy to ignore. Easy to hope that "something" comes along. But I don't call it responsible.
> But do you get that mostly, "better" has just meant that someone else pays the cost?
Well I don't really agree with that, what makes you think so? The economy is not zero sum. Progress is not zero sum. When polio was eradicated, it didn't mean somebody else pays the cost of anything. When doctors learned to wash hands before surgeries so that mothers wouldn't get infected in childbirth, who did that hurt? When Bourlag invented strains of wheat that fed twice as many people for the same land input, ushering in the green revolution, it was all upside.
Similarly, when Wikipedia came along to make a great database of most of the knowledge of the world, that was a great thing. When Apple created the iPhone and ushered in an age when almost everyone has access to all that info in their pockets, it was a great benefit.
Who are these people who are paying the cost? Worldwide poverty and health has also improved tremendously over the last 20 years.
> We are heating up the atmosphere and we don't have a solution
Well yep that's a major problem. Can't say we disagree there, but I don't think the solution is to strive for minimalism (this seems to be neither practical nor desirable).
What? Why?
I mean, yeah, "at all costs" is a little extreme, but the alternative isn't to only value the simple, close by, and cheap. I kind of like the fact that humanity strives for better and better things - it's what took us from the age of 50% of children dying by the age of 5, to barely any dying. It's what took us from the age of the majority living in poverty and hunger, to the majority living far better lives.
It's what will hopefully take us from all the problems we have now, to all the solutions to those problems that we can't even conceive of yet.
I may be misunderstanding you completely - but if I'm not, what's wrong with that?