> What an interesting way to put it, I have to admit. Talk about lives when you consider entire economies and ultimately people as resources to sustain your own standard of living.
That's how it works. Charity certainly hasn't solved the problem.
> commercially optimal energy sources(e.g. fossil fuels)
Interesting argument, that. Do you consider how many would die from spending more on energy by shifting to commercially sub-optimal energy sources? All of the money has to come from somewhere, after all, and foreign investment is usually easy to cut. So's charity.
> If only workers quality of life and working conditions would have been given more value, dozens of suicides
Recheck the statistics about suicides at Foxconn plants:
"The suicide rate at Foxconn during the suicide spate remained lower than that of the general Chinese population, as well as all 50 states in the United States."
> Ultimately the problem itself is in relying on growth which then requires more resources than there are available to sustain the growth.
Malthusianism never stops to consider that one of the main ways to make advances is to make processes more efficient, which is the primary way to sustain growth. Compare how many people farm now to how many people farmed in 1900.
Comments
> What an interesting way to put it, I have to admit. Talk about lives when you consider entire economies and ultimately people as resources to sustain your own standard of living.
That's how it works. Charity certainly hasn't solved the problem.
> commercially optimal energy sources(e.g. fossil fuels)
Interesting argument, that. Do you consider how many would die from spending more on energy by shifting to commercially sub-optimal energy sources? All of the money has to come from somewhere, after all, and foreign investment is usually easy to cut. So's charity.
> If only workers quality of life and working conditions would have been given more value, dozens of suicides
Recheck the statistics about suicides at Foxconn plants:
"The suicide rate at Foxconn during the suicide spate remained lower than that of the general Chinese population, as well as all 50 states in the United States."
http://www.economist.com/node/16231588
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-05-26/tech/30097107...
> Ultimately the problem itself is in relying on growth which then requires more resources than there are available to sustain the growth.
Malthusianism never stops to consider that one of the main ways to make advances is to make processes more efficient, which is the primary way to sustain growth. Compare how many people farm now to how many people farmed in 1900.