> It appears true when you look at inequality but any technological development always benefits almost everyone.
Less inequality will create opportunities for better education for millions if not billions of humans. That will improve technology in ways that just producing more stuff will not.
I do not think that to tie increased consumption with better technology is true. Most of what we produce is low tech stuff like fast fashion. I will argue that producing less and having more time for leisure will also increase scientific output.
So, economic growth is not the same that technological advance. And that is one of the points of the "lefty Europeans": economy measurements are not tied to human advancement and well being but just money.
Economic growth is also not linked to resources use. You can have growth while using less resources, or shrink the economy while using less. This is why the whole movement has always felt weird to me. You can have forever growth while using 0 resources and lowering consumption, because as you say growth is a monetary phenomenon.
> You can have forever growth while using 0 resources and lowering consumption, because as you say growth is a monetary phenomenon.
So, at least we agree that GDP is a bad measure and we need to come up with something better that takes into account more things that just amount of money.
Less inequality will create opportunities for better education for millions if not billions of humans. That will improve technology in ways that just producing more stuff will not.
I do not think that to tie increased consumption with better technology is true. Most of what we produce is low tech stuff like fast fashion. I will argue that producing less and having more time for leisure will also increase scientific output.
So, economic growth is not the same that technological advance. And that is one of the points of the "lefty Europeans": economy measurements are not tied to human advancement and well being but just money.
reply