Talk:Uneconomic growth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This whole article is making a political issue out of a negative externality.
This is a nonsense term made up by anti-globalization advocates with a few digs at Bush thrown in for good measure.
Recommend for deletion. --Capsela 06:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I second the recommendation. This isn't an encyclopedic entry but a political pamphlet.radek 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Extreme Normativity
This whole concept relies on establishing the normative good/bad benefits of growth. Normative judgements are different for all people.
Establishing vague "social and environmental" growth which by definition can't be empirically measured is absurd.
This is like creationists creating a psuedo-science like intelligent design. Only its hippie liberals instead of evangelicals doing the wool pulling.--Capsela 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Deletion? I don't see why; clearly, even if term were "made up by a certain group of people" the accompanying text offers a view into an existing vision with references, and as such should have a place, whether you subscribe to it or not!
- I'm no expert in this area, but the concept of externality as explained on wikipedia to me has a very different intention and scope.
- The Bush examples were on the jabby side, but on the other hand do help to illustrate points, not just "dig".
- Good and bad are inherently bound to opinion and thus offer potential for controversy, the article addresses that in the context of the term.
--OnixWP 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite needed
This article needs a major rewrite -that is clear enough. It’s horribly POV (The original author seemed more concerned with bashing Bush then improving WP) However, the concept itself is entirely valid and in common usage (I have seen it a time or two). For example Scientific American had an 8 page article on the subject a few months ago (I think the September 2005 issue). I will try to track down that article and start a rewrite of the subject. I think Jeffrey D. Sachs did a piece on the same subject a while back. Anyway, some good info exists out there, just not on WP at the moment. So I will see what I can do with it. Brimba 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Good vs Bad growth"
[I presume the above comments were made before significant rewriting; they appear to be quite irrelevant now.]
The example given in the "Good vs Bad growth" section is of cars being produced to run on renewable energy. This is a good step, but my understanding is that the vast majority of energy use / greenhouse gas emissions results from the production of the vehicle, not its own consumption/emission over its life.
To have a significantly smaller impact on the environment, the production of the vehicle must be greened. Should this be added to the article?
It is both, the production of the vehicle and the combustion fluid it uses (otherwise, there would be no problem with SUVs... On an other note, the example is just bad because you are measuring the growth of India, China, and Brazil versus an externality of the world. It may very well be that India, China, and Brazil will still want to buy all those cars even if they consider the effects of global warming. Thus, for them, it would be good growth. If the benefits they get out of getting the cars are greater then the costs brought to THEM by global warming, they may just carry out the transaction. All other countries that do not benefit from the car purchase made by Brazil, China, and India will be losers, and their growth will be adversely affected by the 'selfish' actions of the former three countries. Thus, we need to find a better example as this one relies on costs that will not be entirely internalized by the respective economies. If no one comes up with something, I will try in a few days... Lets try to come up with something a bit more deterministic. Brusegadi 06:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link from Italian entry "Decrescita"
(My comment is not on the content of this entry as such, but on the link from the italian entry "Decrescita". If you go to it:Decrescita, the English link under other languages points here. I don't know what the appropriate place for this comment is.) This topic is not the right translation for the italian "Decrescita", a concept loosely translated as "de-growth", and surprisingly non-existent in english anywhere. The concept was coined by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, who is nowhere mentioned in this entry.
