People Who Save Lives and Enlarge Ecologocal Footprint

So far as I can tell, I am the only technologist, or one of the very few, who understands the true implications of saving lives as a commercial transaction. As usual, savers of lives do not seem to be aware of the population crisis as it actually threatens our species and other species. Let us agree to become aware of Prof. Albert Bartlett's two lists. The first list is a list of those activities or circumstances that worsen the population problem; the second list is a list of things that improve the population problem however regrettable the items are from any other perspective. Next, we understand what can go wrong when economic growth is expected to have a continued beneficial effect even beyond the point where the harmful effects outweigh the good. In short, we have reached the de-growth regime. Both population shrinkage and economic shrinkage are necessary. We should contemplate the game of Monopoly. Private profit has become a very great danger to all living things. https://www.dematerialism.net/ #de-growth; #population; #chrematistics; #ecological footprint; #private profit, harm done by; #resource dominance hierarchies, harm done by

In What Way Are Investments Harmful?

This post assumes you have read Why Capitalism Requires Economic Growth, which explains among other things how the stock market requires economic growth. I assume as well that the reader requires no proof that perpetual growth in a finite world is impossible. (Possibly, the idea that all economic growth results in increased energy consumption should be mentioned.) Now, we come to the brief answer to the question in the title: If the venture capitalist or other investor makes money, we have economic growth, which is justified in the case of the poorer nations of the world provided that it is accompanied by equal or greater shrinkage in the rich countries; however, this is not accomplished by the growth of private fortunes. Otherwise, it exacerbates resource depletion, economic inequality, authoritarianism, and hastens collapse. If the investor loses money, the investor himself is the worse for it. When we are near collapse, it is most likely that the investor will lose. Of course, as in the game of Monopoly, which models today’s economic climate quite well, a talented player might end up with everything, which, as the final inequality, could precipitate a revolution, if earlier events haven’t anticipated it.